Interrogation video reveals officer's comments to black suspect

Editor's note: The Indiana Supreme Court ruled a murder confession obtained by a Gary police detective cannot be used in the suspect's trial because the police officer told the man he would not get a fair trial because he was black. This video includes the detective's comment as well as clips from the three-hour interrogation conducted in February 2011.

Police officers have been given wide latitude in interrogation tactics, but the Indiana Supreme Court on May 13 ruled a Gary detective went too far when he implied to a black suspect that his race precluded him from receiving a fair trial and an impartial jury.

The warning, coming near the end of a three-hour interrogation, likely contributed to the suspect confessing to a murder.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court found "that intentionally misleading a suspect as to his constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial and an impartial jury, because of his race, sits squarely on the wrong side" of the acceptable line.

The ruling came in an appeal by McLynnerd Bond Jr., who is charged in a 2007 murder in Lake County.

Bond's attorney first asked the trial court judge to suppress the confession, but the judge denied that request. That decision was challenged to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court ruling.

Bond then turned to the Supreme Court, which overturned the lower court rulings. The court held the detective's action violated Bond's right to equal access to justice that is guaranteed to all citizens.

During the appeals, Bond's trial was placed on hold.

"I've fought this fight for 2½ years, without much success until today, but doggedness paid off this time," said Thomas Vanes, one of Bond's attorneys.

"The fear among blacks that they cannot get a fair shake from a white-dominated justice system persists. It's the 'To Kill A Mockingbird' theme — maybe not quite as fact-based as it once was, but it remains a palpable fear in some communities nonetheless. Playing to that fear, which is what the interrogator did, goes too far, as powerfully stated today by the Indiana Supreme Court."

Vanes said Bonds has remained in jail while the challenge was heard by the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

"The attorney general has a 30-day window in which it can ask for a rehearing, so nothing is quite official yet," Vanes said. "Assuming no change, we then head back into the trial court and pick up where we left off. Can the prosecution go ahead without the confession? We'll see — too early to say at this point."

The Supreme Court's opinion "sharply clarifies what detectives are and are not permitted to say during interrogations of individuals suspected of violent crimes, and will be valuable guidance to officers who strive to uphold the law fairly," said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the attorney general's office.

"Since this was an interlocutory appeal, the case now returns to the trial court where the defendant's alleged confession will be inadmissible at trial and the charges, if any, would have to be supported by other evidence."

In its order, the Supreme Court noted it has "long held" that law enforcement officers conducting interrogations may use a range of tactics to persuade suspects to provide incriminating statements.

"And we understand that simple question-and-answer methods will not always be successful," the court said. "But the flexibility afforded to law enforcement is still bound by state and federal constitutional protections."

In Bond's case, the detective had interrogated Bond for about three hours. Bond had steadfastly denied his role in the murder — until the officer changed his approach. The officer pointed to the possible makeup of a jury.

"Don't let 12 people who are from Schererville, Crown Point — white people, Hispanic people, other people that aren't from Gary, from your part of the 'hood — judge you," the court order quotes the police officer.

"Because they're not gonna put people on there who are from your neck of the woods. You know that. They're not gonna be the ones to decide what happens to you. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that."

The high court emphasized "this is is not a police tactic that we simply 'do not condone' because it is deceptive.

"Instead, this was an intentional misrepresentation of rights ensconced in the very fabric of our nation's justice system — the rights to a fair trial and an 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 forgo his claim of innocence and confess."

The Supreme Court order noted that both the trial judge and the Court of Appeals majority considered the detective's approach "inappropriate" but believed Indiana case law lacked a precedent that would allow them to throw out the confession.

"The trial court below concluded that, despite its great concern, 'There is no case law that the court is aware of that holds that this type of persuasion renders the confession involuntary,'" Justice Steve David wrote in the opinion. "We clearly understand the trial court's predicament. But now there is."

Here's more from the opinion:

• "Despite nearly 200 years of effort by civil rights activists ... and others, the perception remains that racial discrimination still exists within our justice system ... And the perception is especially common within the African-American community. It defines reality for many African-Americans faced with, serving in, or incarcerated by our criminal courts, and unquestionably has roots in our nation's tortured history of race relations. That there remains such fear or mistrust of the justice system is why all courts must remain vigilant to eradicate any last vestiges of the days in which a person's skin color defined their access to justice. ..."

• "The detective's comment instead intentionally played on the fear that Bond could not receive a fair trial because of his race. And in doing so, it gave truth to that fear. Whereas we so stridently seek to eliminate the perception that race plays a part in the access to justice, the detective strengthened it by grounding it in reality. He was either implying a return to days of overt racial discrimination or saying that we still live in those days."

• "Bond is absolutely entitled under the U.S. Constitution 'to require that those who are trusted with jury selection shall not pursue a course of conduct which results in discrimination in the selection of jurors on racial grounds.'

"The detective knew this. It is not clear whether Bond did, but it is clear that he had no experience with the court system or jurors in Crown Point and he took the detective's comment as true — and it made him believe he 'was going to do the rest of (his) life in jail.'"

Call reporter Tim Evans at (317) 444-6204. Follow him on Twitter: @starwatchtim.