The script read to Dunbar on April 24, 2009, by an assistant district attorney and an investigator as he awaited arraignment on charges that included attempted robbery contained phrases like: "If you have an alibi, give me as much information as you can, including the names of any people you were with" and "If your version of what happened is different from what we've been told, this is your opportunity to tell us your story. If there is something you need us to investigate about this case you have to tell us now so we can look into it."
Another statement in the script was, "This will be your only opportunity to speak with us before you go to court on these charges."
After having been read the script, Dunbar was Mirandized. The investigator asked him if he would answer questions and Dunbar said he would.
But Dunbar interrupted the questioning twice to express confusion or concern about whether the interview was to his benefit.
The investigator said the questioning would be helpful if, for example, Dunbar had an alibi to offer. The prosecutor and the investigator said Dunbar could say something like "it wasn't me, I wasn't there."
When Dunbar said he could not truthfully make such an assertion, the investigator immediately said, "No, you can't say that because we have pictures of you and they found the BB gun and all that stuff."
Dunbar asked if he would be talking to "the D.A." after talking to the investigator and prosecutor.
They responded the next person he would be talking to was his attorney and said it was their job to determine Dunbar's side of the story. Dunbar said he had been forced to rob a store by others.
In a subsequent omnibus motion, Dunbar moved to suppress the statement, but then-Acting Supreme Court Justice Robert McCann rejected the motion, saying Dunbar had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Fifth Amendment rights.
Dunbar then went to trial before Justice Fernando Camacho (See Profile) and was convicted of second-degree attempted robbery and fourth-degree criminal mischief by a jury.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
-
Mike M
Frankly, I thought the first version was the best from the standpoint of the person being charged. It clearly urges him or her to bring forth any alibi or other explanation why the charges are wrong. The later versions muddle the matter in my opinion.
Granted there may be things happening in practice that don't appear on the interview form, but I can easily understand why the DA's office thought they were doing a fair and good thing here. But, as they say, no good deed goes unpunished.
-
W. Addo
I have such an enormous respect for Mr. Brown's Office for quickly revising its pre-arraingment script in conformance of the law. Good work, Mr. Brown. WA
-
Michael
Silly me, I thought the ARRESTING OFFICER has to read the Miranda rights PRIOR TO ARREST/INTERROGATION (including pre-arraignment questionning). So, the DA has now taken over that role for the police? If someone requests and attorney for the Pre-Arraignment Interview, how would an attorney be assigned if the charges are not formally brought (that occurs at arraignment). So, who is the attorney that will be assigned; will they be the same attorney assigned subsequent to arraignment? It's a shame the Judge chooses to continue to protect his fellow club-member (attorney) instead of blatantly calling DIck Brown out for his hypocrisy, immorality, and plain, simple illegality of ambushing defendants JUST BEFORE they are allowed to speak to yet ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE CLUB....(defense attorney). Smart defendants will never take the advice of an 'assigned counsel'...they are strictly interested in plea bargaining and lightening their case load. When a sitting Criminal Court Judge states "Your guilt or innocence DOESN'T MATTER", on the record in a criminal proceeding (I wish I had bought the transcript), then that pretty much sums up the Judiciaries ideas of 'in'-justice.
-
PeteF
The whole story is a lie from top to bottom. Mr.Brown has as much to do with his office as I have. It is nonsense. If the DA was truly interested in helping those in the pre-arraignment process he should have provided for an attorney to be present before any questioning.
The governor should step in immediately and replace Mr.Brown before his staff can do more damage than they have already done.
Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.
Reader Comments