After his arrest on murder charges in the cold, early hours of Oct. 26, 2002, 17-year-old Leeander Jerome Blake was taken to the Annapolis Police Department wearing just boxer shorts and a tank top.
Police read Blake his rights and he requested a lawyer. He sat alone for a half hour until officers returned with a statement of charges saying he faced the possible consequence of “DEATH.”
“I bet you want to talk now, huh?” said Officer Curtis Reese after Detective William Johns handed Blake the charges, using a voice that Johns described in court as loud and confrontational. Soon after, Blake did talk –without a lawyer or a parent present.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday in the case of Maryland v. Blake, which will determine whether the police violated Blake’s rights and whether his statement can be used as evidence in court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could further clarify the rules that police must follow when questioning suspects in custody. It will certainly determine whether Blake goes free or has to stand trial for the Sept. 19, 2002, murder of Straughan Lee Griffin, 51, of Annapolis.
According to court records, Griffin was in front of his home in the city’s historic district when carjackers shot him in the head then ran over him as they fled.
Terrence Tolbert, Blake’s friend and neighbor in an Annapolis public housing community, was convicted of first-degree murder in the case in January and sentenced to life in prison without parole plus 30 years for armed carjacking.
Before his arrest, Tolbert, who was 19 at the time, took a polygraph test that showed deception and made statements implicating himself in the slaying. He asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his plea to have those statements kept out of court, but in October 2004 it declined to hear the case.
At his trial, Tolbert testified he and Blake were high on PCP and walking around in search of a ride to Glen Burnie, but that Blake pulled the trigger.
At issue Tuesday is the landmark Miranda v. Arizona decision of 1966, where the Supreme Court found that self-incriminating statements made by suspects in police custody could only be used as evidence if the accused were informed of their rights first.
The Supreme Court clarified Miranda in 1981, deciding in Edwards v. Arizona, that once a suspect in custody requests an attorney, the police must stop all interrogation until a lawyer is present.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could further clarify the rules that police must follow when questioning suspects in custody. It will certainly determine whether Blake goes free or has to stand trial for the Sept. 19, 2002, murder of Straughan Lee Griffin, 51, of Annapolis.
According to court records, Griffin was in front of his home in the city’s historic district when carjackers shot him in the head then ran over him as they fled.
Terrence Tolbert, Blake’s friend and neighbor in an Annapolis public housing community, was convicted of first-degree murder in the case in January and sentenced to life in prison without parole plus 30 years for armed carjacking.
Before his arrest, Tolbert, who was 19 at the time, took a polygraph test that showed deception and made statements implicating himself in the slaying. He asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his plea to have those statements kept out of court, but in October 2004 it declined to hear the case.
At his trial, Tolbert testified he and Blake were high on PCP and walking around in search of a ride to Glen Burnie, but that Blake pulled the trigger.
At issue Tuesday is the landmark Miranda v. Arizona decision of 1966, where the Supreme Court found that self-incriminating statements made by suspects in police custody could only be used as evidence if the accused were informed of their rights first.
The Supreme Court clarified Miranda in 1981, deciding in Edwards v. Arizona, that once a suspect in custody requests an attorney, the police must stop all interrogation until a lawyer is present.
–>
