Court’s Release of Suspect in Killing Raises Questions Over Interrogation

The topic of discussion in the Van Nuys police interrogation room was the body of a young woman, clad in a pink tank top and miniskirt, found a day earlier by a jogger near the Sepulveda Dam.

It was late afternoon on July 21, 1987, and Richard Heywood Jordan had just been arrested in the murder of Jacquie Ray Graham, 18, who police said was strangled after she made her first venture into prostitution to pay a $42 debt.

As three police detectives took turns questioning him, Jordan admitted that he had picked up Graham on Sepulveda Boulevard and paid her $40 to have sex. And, significantly, police felt, although he denied killing Graham, Jordan--a convicted rapist--admitted having been near where her body was found. Police considered the admissions crucial.

But last month a Van Nuys Municipal Court judge ordered Jordan freed and charges dropped, ruling that police had violated Jordan’s constitutional right to have an attorney present before answering questions--the Miranda rule.

Tracking Error

The ruling left observers wondering: How could police have made such an obvious error?

The answer, determined after a series of interviews and a review of a recording of the interrogation, is that police knew during the questioning that they would have problems getting the evidence admitted in court. They pressed the interrogation because their case was weak and they believed that their questioning provided the only means of getting information against Jordan.

In the end, none of it mattered because Jordan did not confess or provide information linking him to the killing. But the circumstances provide an opportunity to review how Los Angeles police detectives are interpreting and applying the Miranda rule.

The highly publicized case, dismissed by Judge Aviva K. Bobb after Jordan’s preliminary hearing, hit a stumbling block on the question of whether Jordan waived his right to an attorney. The landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Miranda vs. Arizona requires police to advise suspects that they have the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.

In Miranda, the Supreme Court held that if a suspect “indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process, that he wishes to consult with an attorney” or that he wishes to remain silent, all interrogation must cease.

If suspects waive those rights, their statements can be used to prosecute them. If they do not waive the rights, the statements cannot be used in court.

Jordan had become a suspect after two frantic calls to police from Graham’s boyfriend, Richard Hurst, 21, who said he and Graham had gone to Sepulveda Boulevard so she could perform an act of prostitution, her first.

Graham was supposed to turn a trick and return immediately to the boulevard, Hurst said. When she did not, Hurst reported the license number of the car that picked her up. Police traced it to Jordan, who was arrested.

Gaps in Case

But the case was far from strong. A 24-hour gap separated the time Graham got into Jordan’s car from the time her body was found. It was possible that she had been with others in the interim. Police had no physical evidence or witnesses tying the 41-year-old Tarzana printer to the killing. His interrogation by police was vital to the case, said Detective Mel Arnold, who supervises homicide cases in the Van Nuys Division.

As the taped interrogation began, Detective Robert Womack asked Jordan if he wanted to give up his right to remain silent. “Not so far, no,” Jordan replied.

Womack asked if Jordan wanted to give up his right to have an attorney present. “I don’t want to give up that right because I’m not sure what you’re going to ask me,” he replied.

Jordan’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Howard C. Waco, said those early responses should have been enough to stop the interrogation. “The whole game was over after those little words,” he said.

“As soon as he says ‘I don’t want to give up my right,’ the questioning is supposed to stop until he sees a lawyer,” said Gerald Uelman, dean of the Law School at Santa Clara University. “Just suggesting that he might change his mind at some future point does not open the door to continued questioning.”

Questioning Continued

Detectives, however, believed that Jordan’s response was equivocal and that they were following proper police procedure by continuing to question him.

Their position is supported by Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor who specializes in criminal procedure. “There was ambiguity as to whether he was asserting his right to silence,” Arenella said after a transcript of the interrogation was read to him. Smart police officers in that situation will seek to clarify, he said.

Detectives did precisely that. Womack again asked Jordan if he wished to waive his rights.

“If you want to ask me questions, it’s OK if I can give you answers,” Jordan replied. “I don’t know where this is leading so I can’t give up my rights. If you want to ask some questions, sure.”

“In other words,” Womack responded, “you’re saying right now you’ll answer my questions without an attorney, is that what you’re saying, realizing that you can invoke your right to speak with an attorney at any time?”

“I feel like you’re trapping me into something,” Jordan responded. “But I don’t want to not cooperate.”

Arnold said police viewed the response as an invitation to continue talking until Jordan asserted his rights.

Womack asked Jordan what he had done July 19, the day Graham was last seen alive. Jordan said he stopped his car for Graham on Sepulveda Boulevard. They arranged to have sex at a nearby supermarket parking lot but it was too crowded, Jordan said.

The pair ended up at Jordan’s apartment, where they had sex, Jordan told detectives. Jordan said he dropped Graham off on Sepulveda Boulevard where a young man, whom Graham seemed to know, was waiting.

Jordan said he went home and later drove to the Sepulveda Dam area--where Graham’s body was later found--intending to jog.

Did he ever strike Graham, one of the detectives asked? No, Jordan replied.

Was Graham with Jordan when he went to the park? No, Jordan said.

Tougher Approach

Police changed tactics and began applying pressure. Detective Pat Anguiano accused Jordan of lying. “Richard, you killed her,” Anguiano said.

“We’ve reached the point. . . . I will say no more,” Jordan replied.

”. . . We can prove it,” Anguiano said. “All we want to know is why. . . .”

“I feel as though you’re trying to trap me into something,” Jordan said. “I need the advice of an attorney.”

“I think you need some psychological counseling too,” Arnold said. “You have problems with women.”

“At this point, I’m not going to say more,” Jordan responded.

At that point, everyone involved agrees, police were obligated to get an attorney for Jordan. “The interrogation should have stopped right there,” Arenella said.

Interview Didn’t Stop

Instead, Anguiano and Arnold forged ahead.

Finally, Jordan insisted: “I already said I want to talk to an attorney and you keep asking me questions.”

“And we’ll keep asking you questions,” Arnold replied.

“I would rather speak to an attorney,” Jordan repeated.

Anguiano responded with an obscenity and added: “You don’t need an attorney if you cooperate with me.”

Although Arenella and Uelman differed about the propriety of initial police questions, they agreed that police were at this point clearly violating Jordan’s rights. Arenella labeled the foregoing exchange “a classic violation of Miranda,” and Uelman called it “a pretty blatant example of a calculated violation of Miranda rights.”

Police too knew where they stood. After Jordan repeatedly requested an attorney, Anguiano said: “Every statement you gave today will not be used. You didn’t waive your constitutional rights.”

So why did they continue questioning him?

Getting Information

Police frequently do so, Arnold and others said, in hopes of gaining information even though they know it cannot be used in court.

“He could even tell you things that would clear himself,” or “make you deep in your heart know you’ve got the right guy,” Arnold said.

Other detectives agreed, saying they sometimes continue to question suspects because they can help police recover stolen property, identify additional suspects and clear cases that would otherwise go unsolved.

“We’re going to continue talking to him as long as he will open his mouth and talk,” Arnold said. “You have no idea what he’s going to tell you. What if you’d have asked that one little more question and he’d have broken down and confessed to killing six people in Toledo?”

But such tactics carry a risk that goes beyond simply prohibiting the use of a statement. Continuing to question a suspect who invokes his rights “could cause the case not to be prosecutable ever,” Cmdr. William Booth said.

That is because court rulings have held that evidence gathered illegally cannot be used in court, Booth and others said. To use it in court, prosecutors generally must prove that police would have discovered the information independently.

For instance, using Arnold’s hypothetical example, if a suspect’s statements led police to six previously unknown bodies in Toledo, police would be unable to gain a conviction unless they could prove that they would have found the bodies independently, said Joan Howarth, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

‘Legal Gray Area’

Prosecutors reviewing the Jordan case had some hope that a judge would allow Jordan’s statement up to the point where he asked for an attorney, said David R. Disco, head deputy of the Van Nuys district attorney’s office.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Andrew W. Diamond, who prosecuted the case, said prosecutors felt that the case was in a “legal gray area,” especially since courts have tended to ease restrictions set forth in the original Miranda decision and allow use of some evidence obtained under similar circumstances.

But Bobb dismissed Jordan’s statements after hearing detectives describe the interrogation. She ruled that from the start of the questioning, Jordan had refused to give up his rights.

Jordan has not been available for comment since the decision. Waco, his attorney, said he did not want Jordan to be interviewed and added that he has advised him to move to avoid possible police harassment.

Bill Weiss, head of the Van Nuys branch of the Public Defender’s Office, said he has seen only a handful of murder cases dismissed because of Miranda violations in his 15-year career. But Weiss said he does not fault prosecutors for filing the case and pursuing it in court.

When there are admissibility problems with a case involving a violent crime, “D.A.s want a judicial ruling. And they’re right, and I agree with that. It’s for the judge to make decisions,” Weiss said.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that this guy never waived his rights,” Weiss said. But “people will vary and various courts will differ. In this situation, there is a gray area.”