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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT