Malvo confession stands

A court today decided that nearly all of Lee Malvo's confession can be used against him in his upcoming trial in the "DC sniper" case.

Malvo's lawyers had argued that police and prosecutors essentially conspired to keep Malvo away from his lawyers on Nov. 7, when federal charges against Malvo were dropped and he was transferred to Virginia custody. He had been in Maryland.

Malvo's federally appointed lawyers on that day testified that they scrambled to find their client and prevent him from talking to police, but were unsuccessful.

But Roush wrote that "there is no evidence that Fairfax police or prosecutors colluded with federal authorities to spirit Malvo away to Virginia without the knowledge of his Maryland attorneys."

Roush also ruled that Malvo had no right to counsel on Nov. 7, because the federal charges against him had been dropped and the Virginia charges were not formalized until Nov. 8, when he made his initial court appearance. She also ruled that, even if he had the right to a lawyer, he knowingly waived it during his questioning with police.

Malvo had asked if he would "get to see his lawyers" prior to the start of the interview and was told that he would, but the court held that this was not a request for his attorney but only Malvo clarifying his Miranda rights.

I don't want to see Malvo get away with the murders he likely committed. Given the evidence against him - aside from his confession - it appears that he is guilty, and if that's the case, then he needs to be convicted and punished as called for in the law.

The problem I have is that the law enforcement officers and lawyers who spoke to him after his arrest appear to have played "fast and loose" with his legal rights, and this judge is letting them get away with it. Even if you feel that criminals have too many rights, and that the judge made the correct ruling, the ruling strikes me (who, admittedly, is not a legal expert) as being shaky at best, and since it is appealable after a trial is concluded, could potentially lead to an overturning of any conviction that is gained.

As far as I am concerned, neither violating a criminals rights to try and get additional information against him nor a legally questionable ruling that could lead to a conviction being overturned are good. Lawyers and cops know what the rules are and should avoid breaking them. That part is very simple. Nearly everyone gets angry when a criminal gets off on a technicality, and in many cases, its something that could easily have been avoided.

Judges should also uphold the rules, because when they don't, they put the case at risk for reversal on appeal. That's no better.

The flip side of that is that convicting someone using illegally obtained evidence, even if it's allowed by a judge, runs the risk of false convictions, something that only gives justification to the understandable concerns about the use of the death penalty. We've seen in cases like that of the Central Park jogger (among others) that false confessions do happen, especially when the interrogations take place under questionable circumstances. While I have to admit that I don't think Malvo's confession is false, the way in which it was obtained, and the fact that he was denied any legal representation, do serve to at least raise the question of just how voluntary it was.