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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT