ILNews

Murder confession after racially charged interrogation heads to Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court agreed to review whether the confession of a man charged with murder can be used against him because it was gained during a racially charged interrogation.

The murder confession case involves a nonpublished, divided Court of Appeals ruling on interlocutory appeal in which the appellate panel affirmed Lake Superior Judge Diane Ross Boswell’s denial of a motion to suppress the confession of McLynnerd Bond for the 2007 murder of Kadmiel Mahone.

At the center of the case is Gary Detective Edward Gonzalez’s interrogation of Bond, who is African-American. About two hours in, Gonzalez sought to convince Bond he couldn’t receive a fair trial at the courthouse in Crown Point, implying there would be no African-American jurors.

According to the record, Gonzalez told Bond, “Don’t let twelve people who are from Schererville, Crown Point, white people, Hispanic people, other people that aren’t from Gary, from your part of the hood, judge you. Because they’re not gonna put people on there who are from your neck of the woods.”

About an hour later, Bond confessed to killing Mahone. In McLynnerd Bond, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 45S03-1309-CR-597, the appeals court majority of Chief Judge Margret Robb and Judge Ezra Friedlander uncomfortably concluded that Bond’s confession in the cold case had been voluntary. “Like the trial court, we do not approve of the comment made by Detective Gonzales. However, this does not necessarily render the confession involuntary,” Robb wrote.

Judge James Kirsch briefly but strongly dissented, noting the detective also used an obscene name and screamed at Bond during interrogation, dismissing the trial court’s comment that the detective’s behavior caused it “great concern” and is “strongly discouraged.”  

“Yet, each time courts allow such conduct, they implicitly sanction it and encourage the next police officer in the next interrogation to go a bit further, to be more offensive, more racist and more deceptive,” Kirsch wrote.

“I would go beyond expressing ‘concern,’ ‘discouraging,’ ‘not approving’ and ‘condoning,’ and I would expressly condemn the police conduct that occurred here. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.”

Separately, justices also granted transfer during the week ending Sept. 13 to a case considering whether an appeals court rightly threw out a trial court adjudication of a 14-year-old Indianapolis boy for what would be criminal gang activity if committed by an adult.

In G.H. v. State of Indiana, 49S02-1309-JV-595, the Court of Appeals held the evidence against the juvenile defendant was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding against him.

An appeals panel reversed the Marion Superior finding, ruling that a “guilt-by association argument is circular and unpersuasive.”

The case involves two other juveniles with whom G.H. “hung out,” and a question of whether the state met its burden of proving the elements of the charge: that the child (1) was an active member of a criminal gang, (2) had knowledge of the group’s criminal advocacy, and (3) had a specific intent to further the group’s criminal goals.

Justices denied transfer in 23 cases for the week ending Sept. 13. Transfer dispositions may be viewed here. 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT