INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION PERSUADING DEFENDANT HE CANNOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL BASED UPON HIS RACE

In State v. Bond, decided May 13, 2014, a murder suspect’s confession was involuntary because a detective told him he might not receive a fair trial and impartial jury in Lake County due to his race.  The detective intensely interrogated Bond in 2011 for a 2007 cold case murder.  About two hours into the custodial interrogation, the detective told Bond, who is African-American, that he wouldn't get a fair trial because of his race.  Bond later admitted committing the murder.

In an unpublished opinion, a divided Court of Appeals disapproved of the detective's inappropriate statement but upheld the denial of Bond's motion to suppress.  In his dissenting opinion, Judge Kirsch argued, “each time courts allow such conduct, they implicitly sanction it and encourage the next police officer in the next interrogation to go a bit further, to be more offensive, more racist and more deceptive.” 

On transfer, the Indiana Supreme Court agreed, noting: "this is not a police tactic that we simply do not condone because it is deceptive.  Instead, this was an intentional misrepresentation of rights ...to a fair trial and impartial jury, and the right not to be judged by or for the color of your skin—carried out as leverage to convince a suspect in a criminal case that his only recourse was to forego his claim of innocence and confess.  And like Judge Kirsch, we condemn it."  Although police officers are given wide latitude in interrogation tactics, detective in this case went too far.  The court reversed the judge’s denial of Bond’s motion to suppress his confession and remanded for further proceedings.