August 4, 2021


Beyond law

Confession stricken from proof in December murder scenario

(Fremont County, WY) – The confession of Pavillion lady Bennilee Strock, 39, to the alleged fatal stabbing of husband Jeffrey Strock on the evening of December 24th, has been suppressed, in accordance to an buy launched by Judge Marvin Tyler.

Strock pled “not guilty” in her January District Court docket arraignment hearing, and in a multi-day motion to suppress hearing, Strock and General public Defender Valerie Schoneberger requested her confession be stricken from the history, citing intoxication, unavailability of a asked for law firm and BIA officer, and alleged officer intimidation.

“It is requested that the Defendant’s motion to suppress proof be, and the similar is hereby, granted in part and denied in portion,” reads Judge Tyler’s get.

The “denied in part” aspect of the ruling, refers to statements by the detained Strock that were being unprompted, while no just one was all-around. According to court docket files, “Alone in the area, at around 12:27 AM, the Defendant commenced earning unsolicited statements which are recorded on the audio and video monitoring and recording system. The statements finish at roughly 12:31 AM.”

Although the Defense initially argued that Strock’s .19% BAC and inebriated condition showcased in bodycam footage was partly the proof necessary to establish her confession to be inadmissible, County Prosecutor Patrick LeBrun countered, “When she was getting interviewed, no mania was exhibited, she was answering issues. If she felt intimidated, absolutely nothing viewed in the interview could be seen as coercion.”

Having all of this into thing to consider, Choose Tyler purchased that “the Defendant’s recorded unsolicited statements involving roughly 12:27:00 a.m. and close to 12:31:00 a.m. on December 25, 2020, be, and the similar are hereby, considered voluntarily given, they are admissible, and they will not be suppressed statements.”

Even so, confusion in the course of the detainment interview involving Fremont County Sheriff’s Business office Detective Anthony Armstrong and Strock, and the fact that “The Point out has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the proof that the Defendant’s Miranda warnings were being provided to her prior to any questioning by law enforcement officials,” are what led to the “granted in part” aspect of the ruling.

According to court docket files, “Between the time that the Deputy taken out the Defendant from her residence in Pavillion, had her handcuffed and positioned in a “caged area” of a Sheriff’s patrol automobile, transported her to the Riverton Sheriff’s office environment, and placed in the interview space, and approximately 12:47 AM, when Armstrong started reading the Miranda warnings from a printed card, no regulation enforcement officers, exclusively together with Amstrong, had knowledgeable the Defendant of her status (i.e., underneath arrest or no cost to leave), and no regulation enforcement officers, exclusively such as Armstrong, experienced knowledgeable her of the Miranda warnings.”

The next interactions took put between Detective Armstrong and Strock all through the interview immediately after Armstrong began reading the Miranda warnings at 12:47 AM:

Armstrong: “Do you understand the things I read through to you?

Strock: “Ummm, yeah, can you re-examine it to me?”

Armstrong: “Yup.”

Strock: “Like, slowly.”

Armstrong: “Would it enable you if you read it?

Strock: “Yeah.”

Armstrong: “You confident can.”

Strock: “Can I browse it? So can I examine it to you?”

Armstrong: “Yeah, totally.”

Strock: “You have the appropriate to keep on being silent, of course, I know that. Something you say might be applied versus you in a court docket of law, ok, I realize that. You have the right to chat to a lawyer and to have a lawyer existing while you are getting questioned, so like when you are questioning me, I can call a lawyer ideal now?”

Armstrong: “So if, if you want a lawyer, then I just can’t converse to you and get your aspect of what is heading on. That is your appropriate to get in touch with a lawyer, ummm otherwise…”

Strock: “But you are unable to query, concern me further more right up until, if I abide to say, oh all right, I’m likely to have a law firm occur in and you simply cannot issue me any longer?”

Armstrong: “I, I guess I really do not comprehend what you are declaring.”

Strock: “So I’m indicating, if you want to question me any more and I say alright I want a lawyer in below before you question me, you are not able to query me any longer?”

Armstrong: “Ummm, if you say that you want a attorney, then I’m, I’m not likely to ask you any issues.”

A few times later in the job interview transcript:

Armstrong: “I want to get your aspect of what took place.”

Strock: “But, I want to explain to you what occurred but, but, I want my law firm right here far too.”

Armstrong: “Okay.”

Strock: “You know I didn’t do anything at all erroneous.”

Armstrong: “I never, I do not know that.”

Strock: “Well I do want him to witness what I say.”

Armstrong: “I never, I really do not fully grasp.”

Strock: “I meant.”

Armstrong: “Are you willing to chat to me?”

Strock: “Yeah, I’m willing to talk to you.”

Armstrong: “Okay.”

The Court docket ruled that “The Defendant evidently and unambiguously invoked her suitable to have lawful counsel current for even further questioning. This was disregarded, and additional questioning did not instantly stop. Armstrong persisted in acquiring the Defendant give incriminating statements without having the existence of an legal professional.”

Owing to the “unambiguously invoked proper to legal counsel” Decide Tyler requested that “the Defendant’s statements and solutions to law enforcement officers after approximately 12:39 AM, on December 25, 2020, be, and the exact are hereby, suppressed and inadmissible as evidence at the demo of the over scenario.”

The purchase was filed with the following caveat:

“The Court docket concludes that selected of the Defendant’s statements to be suppressed have not been revealed to have been manufactured ‘voluntarily,’ and they do not satisfy admissibility prerequisites. This ruling is supposed to preclude the Condition from introducing such proof at demo in its case-in-chief. This resolve should not be deemed to prohibit introduction of this proof for other correct motives underneath the Wyoming Rules of Evidence. Even further, the State may well be permitted to introduce this evidence in rebutting specified defenses and/or in rebuttal, based upon what testimony and evidence is adduced at trial. In the party that this evidence is sought to be offered, the Condition shall notify the Courtroom and Defendant outdoors the hearing of the jury, so that the grounds and motives offering increase to introduction of the proffered evidence could be effectively thought of on the file outside the house the presence of the jury.”

The abide by-up trial had to begin with been established for July, but has been moved to a but to be established date in September.

County 10 will supply updates on the situation as it progresses, which can be located below.