Discipline of Investigators in Sidnee Stephens Murder Case Enough to Beat Glazier Motion

</element><element id="paragraph-1" type="body"><![CDATA[The Honorable Judge James Campanella Tuesday handed down a seven-page order which denies a motion by murder defendant James Glazier's legal counsel to suppress self-incriminating remarks he made at the outset of their investigation into the death of 15-year-old Pinckneyville teen Sidnee Stephens in July 2010.

The order puts the case on track for a March 1 pre-trial hearing at 11 a.m. in Perry County Circuit Court. Glazier has largely exhausted any other means to postpone his trial.

At issue was whether Glazier's rights were fully protected while in police custody in Pinckneyville after his arrest and whether any remarks at the time were willful.

The order--actually a well-written narrative-- provides some insight as to how disciplined investigators were at the outset.

Glazier is charged as a co-defendant in the July 2010 death of the Pinckneyville girl, whose body was found by fishermen in Beaucoup Creek.

Co-defendant Carl Dane had been sentenced June 23, 2011 to 60 years in prison for the murder, and was about to be transferred to the Illinois Department of Corrections when he took his life in the Perry County Jail.

Dane has confessed to going to Stephens&#39; home and choking her until she passed out. He then drove her to a bridge on Cudgetown Road that crosses Beaucoup Creek in central Perry County , where he shot her and left her body. The creek below was shallow and Dane went back to the scene two days later to try and weigh the body down to conceal it. The body was found by fishermen on July 25.

The third co-defendant is Robbie Mueller who, like Glazier, pleaded not guilty.

His trial was scheduled to begin on January 26, but has been postponed because of a surgery.

The narrative begins on July 29, 2010 after Sidnee Stephens' body was found. Pinckneyville police officer Carl Martin and Chief of Police John Griffin met James Glazier in Nashville where he was working for Friendship Manor Nursing Home. At the time investigators knew that Glazier had an affiliation with a local Pinckneyville gang known as the P-Town Saints. Glazier agreed to drive back to the Perry County Jail for an interview. The conversation was casual, mostly about employment. The officers didn't know that co-defendant Carl Dane was already being interviewed about the murder. The narrative describes Glazier as "extremely pleasant, cordial and non-stressed at least until just a few moments prior to the termination of that interview. The interview turned from cordial to accusatory after Chief Griffin received a phone call from investigator Tim Russell that there was evidence that Glazier should also be considered a suspect in the Stephens slaying. Glazier was advised he was under arrest, could not leave and was read his Miranda rights. Glazier invoked his right to council and the interview was immediately terminated."

Glazier's mother arrived after the defendant expressed a desire to see her.

She was allowed in and what happened thereafter is the focus of the motion to suppress evidence. The defendant hugged his mother Elizabeth Glazier either in a hallway or a room at the jail. "Defendant's emotions apparently got the best of him and through tears he looked over at both Chief Griffin and officer Martin and said, 'Let's make a deal, let's make a deal'." To their credit, according to Campanella, Griffin and Martin replied several times "Don't talk to us" obviously realizing that the defendant was emotional and had previously invoked his right to an attorney. "Officer Martin went to such an extent as to hold his hands up in an effort to get the defendant to stop talking while continuing to say 'No. Don't say nothing to us, don't talk to us, we can't talk to you no more'."

Du Quoin assistant Chief of Police Jamie Ellermeyer and investigator Tim Russell replaced Griffin and Martin. Glazier didn't say anything nor were statements requested.

Glazier's father arrived at the jail, but Glazier refused to meet with him, but later changed his mind. Ellermeyer heard Glazier make a statement to his father. Charles Glazier told his son, "Tell them the truth, talk to the police as they have badges like I do." Glazier is a corrections officer. The statement was overheard by Ellermeyer but was not elicited at the request of any officer.

The narrative hints that Chief Griffin gave Glazier's mother access to her son conditional upon asking her son to talk. Ellermeyer and Russell returned to the room together and said "It's over--he won't talk" and it was only upon Elizabeth Glazier's insistence that the officers stayed in the room for a few moments because she claimed that her son did indeed want to talk and he was simply waiting for the officers to return. Ms. Glazier testified that police never told her to tell James Glazier to say anything, but did tell her what to do.

Testimony reflects questions by Russell to Ms. Glazier as follows: "Did the officers tell you what to say to your son?" Answer: "No." Question: "Whatever you said to him was your own choice." Answer: "Yes." Glazier turned 17 20 says before the alleged incident and was charged as an adult. Elizabeth and charles Glazier are divorced and Charles Glazer was awarded custody. Neither Elizabeth or Charles Glazier would have had any legal right to see and visit with their son once he was charged with murder.

Russell plainly read defendant his Miranda rights and after Glazier stated that he understands the same and wishes to waive them, asked Elizabeth Glazier who is standing next to her son whether or not she thinks her son understood those rights. To that she unequivocally replies "yes" then turns to her son and says, "I think you need to. You're the only one that knows what you did and you need to talk to the cops.. The only way to keep Carl from hurting you is to talk to the cops so do it".

Handwriting can be heard thereafter and this court assumes that it was at that point defendant signed the written waiver of Miranda rights marked as state's Exhibit B and admitted herein. Again then Russell asked whether or not the defendant wants to talk and he replies "Yes. I can't do this to my mom". Russell says again, "So you want to talk to us, right?" Answer by the defendant: "Yes." The defendant is then heard to say, "I'll talk. I'll talk. I have already tried to protect him once, I'm don!" Defendant is obviously concerned about his safety where Carl Dane is concerned, but the police are heard to reassure him that Dane is in custody, in jail and has no ability to get to the defendant.

Charles Glazier testified to a different set of facts saying that once he had access to his son who was crying, upset and shaking his son made an exculpatory statement. Charles Glazer said his son repeated that statement three times. Charles said he never saw Russell or Ellermeyer and doesn't even know if they were within ear shot of that statement. Charles admitted that even though he was awarded custody of defendant and was the designated residential parent of James Glazer, he had allowed James to live with his grandparents that was where he was residing on July 2, 2010. Charles Glazier finally testified that he too encouraged his son to talk to police and to tell the truth.

Rebuttal witness Chief John Griffin testified that he placed no conditions upon Elizabeth's access to her son nor did he direct her to do anything, let alone make her son give a statement. Carl Martin, also called in rebuttal, agreed with Griffin that no conditions were placed upon Elizabeth or Charles Glazier's access to their son. Again, Carl Martin testified that he definitely heard James Glazier say "Let's make a deal." James Glazer subsequently and irrespective of officers Russell and Ellermeyer telling him at least twice prior to his statement that he did not need to talk to police and that if he wanted an attorney one would be obtained or him and that he had a right to remain silent, agreed, with his mother's prompting, to give the statement in question.

While the usual issues of knowing and intelligent waver of Miranda rights and a voluntarily given statement are definitely issues to be address by the court, the additional issue of reinitiating contact with the police by the defendant also has to be addressed.

It is undisputed that the defendant once he was accused and told he was under arrest was read his Miranda rights and requested an attorney. It is further undisputed that at the time of his request for an attorney the interrogation and interview ceased.

The court has reviewed all of the cases provided by both the state and defense. It has further reconsidered the memorandums of law and arguments submitted by both the state and defense. It has also reviewed the exhibits and the two CDs which comprise the statement of James Glazier.

It is herby found that the statement was voluntary. This is absolutely no indication of a coerced statement here. Quite to the contrary,officer Griffin and Marin did everything they could to get the defendant to stop talking after he requested counsel and officers Ellermeyer ad Russell reminded the defendant on at least two subsequent occasions that he was under no duty to talk to police and that they would not reinitiate the conversation unless he insisted upon making a statement. At least twice his mother encouraged him to go ahead and make a statement and to tell the truth. He father encouraged the same. The defendant in no way was prodded by police to make a statement and this court finds ample evidence that the same was given voluntarily. There is no credible evidence that police conditioned Elizabeth Glazier's meeting with her son upon her promise to make him talk. The court is mindful of Elizabeth Glazier's testimony that she wasn't about to leave without meeting with her son.

Did defendant then knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights? While there was some evidence the defendant may have not been of superior IQ, there was never any evidence to the extent necessary to show the court that the defendant didn't understand his Miranda rights and knowingly and intelligently waive the same. The defendant is heard to say that he know what his rights were but even after having said that the police insisted that they read each and every right to him very specifically and slowly and defendant unequivocally stated that he understood his rights and wished to waive the same. Additional evidence of the written and signed Miranda waiver lends credence to the aforesaid. The court finds that the state has sustained its burden in showing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant's statement was given knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, the order says. It concludes by saying the reinitiation by Glazier with respect to subsequent comments were within the law and that authorities did everything properly with respect to seeking legal counsel. Only the court, not police, can appoint that attorney.