Questioning the detective
During his cross-examination of the detective, Shouse read several statements made by Marcum from the first interview’s transcript in which she stated she was uncomfortable answering certain questions without an attorney present.
In the first interview, the transcript indicated Marcum said “I don’t want to answer anything else without an attorney present.”
However, Shouse pointed out the troopers continued the interview. Reeder responded that although Marcum made that statement, “she goes on and keeps talking.”
When asked why, after Marcum was swabbed in February, the conversation with her continued for more than 30 minutes, Reeder said it was “because she continued to talk to me.”
Shouse questioned Reeder about the techniques he used in the interviews, stating he may have used a method called the “Reid technique” that constantly redirects the interviewee back to the questions the officer wants answered. The technique has been criticized, according to several media reports, with some criminal justice experts claiming it elicits false confessions.
Reeder said he didn’t consider any encounter he had with Marcum an “interrogation.” He also repeatedly said he made no threats or promises to her.
“A lot of times she’s the one that says things, and I just sit there,” he said.
Reeder was the only witness called to testify at the hearing.
After the detective’s testimony, Shouse asked the judge for 10 days to file a written argument in favor of suppressing Marcum’s statements made during the interviews with Reeder. Smith asked for 10 days after the document is filed to respond.
Clouse granted both requests.
Singleton’s attorneys, Jim Baechtold and Michael Eubanks, also talked to Clouse about their motion to try the two defendants separately. Clouse said he would consider the issue closer to the trial date.
Sarah Hogsed can be reached at email@example.com or 624-6694.