Hi Proserpina, thanks for asking. I do have a question. Before the grandjury trial ever began my niece was interrogated, intimidated, and held against her will. Her Attorney ask for the testimony to be suppressed, shortly after it was made public, but not all of it. The first 22 pages were not made public.
Can either myself, or her, ask for the first 22 pages with the Freedom of Information Act?
You can try.
Expect to be ignored.
You can try again.
Expect to receive 20-odd pieces of paper with virtually anything of any interest redacted. And that's assuming the State can actually respond.
I suspect her attorney already knows this.
So, onto the meat of the argument:
This happened over 6 years ago, my niece received the strictest sentence the State could give.
What do you believe is wrong about the sentence? Not the conviction - the sentence.
It all came down to the grandjury testimony. It is obvious from reading it that she didn't understand her rights, and the Prosecutor was misleading.
That's kind of his job. People often forget the fact that what is okay for the defense is also okay for the offense.
Well, that's unfortunate.
She was informed of her Miranda right and that she didn't have to answer the questions, that she could have an attorney, but she didn't have an attorney.
Sounds proper so far. It's looking like she admitted to the crime before anyone had a chance at assigning her a PD.
It was also obvious that she was under much duress.
Duress as in, "Flustered and confused"? or duress as in "she was being threatened with bodily harm, worse, or something equally heinous"?
She was confused and didn't know what was happening, I don't think she knew what the fifth amendment was. She was ambushed.
I'm seeing a poorly equipped defendant. The old adage of "ignorance is not a defense" still holds strong.
Her attorney filed for appeal to the State Supreme Court and lost, five out of six assignments of error.
Good for him for trying. I suspect he knew it would be a long shot at best.
They told her they wanted to ask her some questions and took her to a Grand Jury hearing. They did it all on the same day, without any prior notice, a subpoena, or a target letter.
She didn't once ask for an attorney?
(For what it's worth, there is nothing in and of itself improper about rushing a case through)
The questioning was guided and misleading by the Prosecutor, quickly tricking her to admitting guilt because she felt bad about what happened and agreed it was an accident.
But she still didn't request an attorney, non?
This got her life in prison.
Hold it. One doesn't get from questioning to a mistake to life in prison easily. What actually happened?
The jurors said they didn't believe the one and only witness, who was a conspirator and probably more guilty than my niece, but was given immunity, but they relied solely on the grandjury testimony. Her attorney did ask to have it suppressed and it was denied. I have the strongest feeling that she was denied due process. Opinions, experience, and wisdom appreciated.
Based purely on what you've written here, I don't believe she was denied due process.
What I do see though, is a case where things didn't go to plan and the eventual attorney evidently thinks the same way. Here's the bigger issue. There is generally only so far an appeals process can go. She's already gone past the State - is she willing and financially able to take it all the way to SCOTUS?
What is her attorney saying?