16-year-old Noah Smith of Bunnell was shot and killed outside his home in a crossfire the night of January 12, 2022. Three men were eventually arrested and charged with first-degree murder, among them Tyrese Patterson, 20 at the time of the shooting. Patterson’s trial is scheduled for the first week of July.
In court today, Patterson’s attorney, Tim Pribisco, heatedly sparred with Flagler County Sheriff’s detective Augustin Rodriguez, who was testifying, and just as fiercely argued to Circuit Judge Terence Perkins that an interrogation of Patterson at the county jail by Rodriguez is inadmissible at trial, because Patterson twice directly and indirectly asked about his attorney, only for the interrogation to continue.
Pribisco argued that the moment a defendant makes any allusion–even imprecise allusions–to an attorney, the interrogation must come to a dead stop regardless. Anything less is a violation of his constitutional right.
Perkins didn’t disagree. But he said Patterson’s statements were “equivocal and ambiguous,” leaving only one question to decide: did Rodriguez do what he was supposed to do in those circumstances–did he ask the right questions to ensure that Patterson’s rights were not violated. If he did not, then those rights were violated, and the jury will not see the video of that particular interrogation (though the trial will go on). If Rodriguez did ask the right questions, the video stays in evidence.
Both sides made convincing arguments in an unusually elaborate, two-hour motion-to-suppress hearing that deconstructed the constitutional protections against self-incrimination and the importance placed on Miranda warnings (“you have the right to an attorney,” etc.). The hearing was complex only to the extent that the two sides were interpreting rather clear statements very differently, illustrating to what extent interpretation of words, clauses, demeanor and context can redefine what may have seemed obvious at first. Case-law precedents, many of which were cited, seemed mere footnotes to interpretation, as those precedents themselves could also be interpreted differently.
The facts in play, even the words Patterson spoke in that interrogation, are not in dispute (though the court reporter who provided the official transcript made at least one key error, mis-transcribing one of Patterson’s statements.)
Patterson was interviewed by detectives two days after the killing of Noah Smith, in the presence of his attorney at the time, Steven Robinson. Patterson’s mother had called detectives so her son could tell what he knew. He told detectives he knew nothing substantive about the killing. Robinson gave his contact information to the detectives, and said subsequent communications were possible.
Patterson was arrested four months later on an unrelated charge: possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. By then, detectives had a good idea he was one of their main suspects (he was indicted 14 days later). Patterson was at the Flagler County jail when Rodriguez and two other detectives set up an interrogation there, on June 14, 2022. A corrections deputy told Patterson that he was to meet with his attorney.
There was no attorney there. As Patterson shuffled in and sat down, and as Rodriguez gets ready to read him his rights, Patterson, the motion to suppress states, asked: “Where’s my lawyer at?” In the court transcript, Patterson had sat down, Rodriguez had read him detailed rights, including the parts where he could stop the interview at any time and request a lawyer, and only then said: “I want my lawyer.”
“I’m sorry?” Rodriguez said, according to the transcript.
“My lawyer ain’t here,” Patterson is quoted as saying, though the video more clearly showed him saying “where’s my lawyer at.”
To which Rodriguez responds: “Where is your lawyer at? I have no idea anything about a lawyer. That’s for you to decide.” Rodriguez then tells Patterson he is going to show him a couple of videos on a laptop, “just to make sure that you understand what you’re up against, because we really haven’t had a lot of opportunities to talk and we didn’t want to waste your time to come here with some bullshit and then you not have any clarification of what’s going on. If you don’t want to talk to us, you don’t have to talk to us. If you don’t want to watch this, you don’t have to watch this. You do have the right to an attorney to be with you before we ask you–”
Patterson interrupts: “I’ll watch it.” Rodriguez asks him to clarify. Patterson says again that he’ll watch the video.
Rodriguez tells a disbelieving Patterson that everyone else police spoke to says Patterson shot Smith. Patterson asked to see the video again, and called it all “lies.”
But that’s beyond the scope of today’s hearing, which was strictly about whether that interrogation could be shown to the jury or not.
Assistant State Attorney Mark Johnson, who is prosecuting the case, seized on Rodriguez getting confirmation from Patterson that he wanted to watch the video, after Patterson had asked about his lawyer. Johnson argued that doing so meant Patterson had waived his right to a lawyer.
“Detective Rodriguez met his legal obligation to say: ‘these are your rights,'” Johnson argued to the court. “‘You said, Where’s my lawyer? I’m making it clear to you, you do not have to talk to me. You do not have to watch this. You have the right to have a lawyer here.’ And with that it’s specifically said, it’s as clear as day in the video: The defendant wanted to watch the video and then engage with detective Rodriguez.”
Pribisco didn’t see it that way. Not only had Patterson asked about his lawyer–not vaguely, not ambiguously–but even if ambiguity was an issue, then context leading up to the interrogation addresses the matter of Rodriguez knowing that Patterson had already lawyered up previously, with Robinson.
“I think what the court should take considerable pause on review is the testimony of detective Rodriguez against the backdrop of what is said in response to this unequivocal statement,” Pribisco said. “If we’re looking at it from an unequivocal standpoint, I still think that we win. And I think that we win, because what the breadth of the case law says is, at the point in time when you hear ‘lawyer,’ there should be bells and red flags going on. And at that point in time, the purpose of the officer’s duty there no longer is investigating a murder. It is: I need to make sure about what this person is asking, and I have a duty to genuinely inform them.”
But instead of answering Patterson’s question about a lawyer, Rodriguez “said something completely different. ‘You have to know what you’re up against. I’m not trying to feed you this BS,'” Pribisco told the court, quoting Rodriguez. “That is the antithesis of what this constitutional jurisprudence is supposed to be.”
Pribisco is right, and if Rodriguez had stopped there, the judge would have granted him his motion. But Rodriguez didn’t stop there. It was only moments later that Rodriguez again explicitly told Patterson that he didn’t have to talk, didn’t have to watch the video, adding: “You do have the right to an attorney to be with you before we ask you,” which elicited Patterson’s answer that he’ll watch, that he wanted to go on.
Perkins didn’t issue a ruling at the end of the hearing. But he all but tipped his hand. “I can tell you that with regard to factual findings, I am going to find that the attempt to invoke [Patterson’s rights] is equivocal and ambiguous, which isn’t the end of the analysis. It’s just the start of the analysis,” the judge said. “I do believe that that triggered a duty on behalf of law enforcement to inquire with regard to that. And I want to go back and look at that specific portion of the video again.”
Given that Perkins had ruled, however questionably, on the most salient part of the argument–the ambiguity–and given the weight Perkins gives to words as they are spoken (it’s the textualist part in him) it was difficult to picture a scenario where he would find Rodriguez’s words insufficient, and Patterson’s repeated request to see the video unambiguous. In other words, it’s difficult to see any other scenario but a motion denied.
Stephen Monroe and Devandre Williams were also charged with Smith’s murder. Noah Smith was outside his house on South Anderson Street that January 12 when Terrell Sampson allegedly fired a gun at a dark compact SUV that allegedly contained Patterson, Williams and Monroe. Smith saw the shooting, ran inside, told his father, and ran back out. Sampson drove away then returned, at which point there was gunfire from the SUV, ostensibly at Sampson, but a bullet hit Smith in the hip, ending his life.
This article will be updated when Perkins issues his ruling.
Randy Bentwick says
Big deal. This country is trying to destroy the constitution anyway.
The Geode says
When this simpleton asked for a lawyer, he should have just shut down the interrogation and NOT said another word. When HE chose to keep running his mouth and watch the video because of his curiosity to see the evidence against him – he forfeited and rescinded his right to have counsel present. Can’t have it both ways.
Skibum says
It may surprise some people to know that a suspect could be very specific and request a lawyer in one sentence, and in the very next sentence say, “Yes, I’ll talk to you and answer your questions”, and anything he says can be presented in court against him. In essence, although it was a little messy, this is what happened here. He was not even specifically requesting a lawyer, and his comment regarding that was apparently due to someone informing him at the jail that his lawyer was there to see him when in fact it was the investigating detective, not the lawyer. So when the suspect arrived in the room, an initial question from him as to “where is my lawyer” was reasonable, but not indicating he was refusing to talk to the detective. I think the judge will in all probability see this issue the same way and allow what was discussed into the court record. However, in the future, I would hope if a similar situation arises with that detective, that he has learned something and will make it absolutely clear before proceeding that the suspect is in fact waving his right to counsel and has stated that he wants to talk with the detective about the case.
The Geode says
Well if he was read the “Miranda Warning”, what else do you want? Even at the end when the officer says, “do you understand these rights”? – the person can either say yes or no. If he says “yes”, all bets are off until you request a lawyer. “Where’s my lawyer” is not “I want a lawyer”. Law is not about nuance, feelings, or trying to interpret the colloquialism of a person you just TOLD to keep their mouths shut. No “ambiguity” here…