Judges mull evidence for ex-astronaut's trial
10-21-2008, 11:00 AM
#1
Administrator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: C-172
Posts: 8,024
Judges mull evidence for ex-astronaut's trial
Nothing to do with FARs, but I'm posting it here nevertheless. This is actually a very interesting evidentiary question. I don't do criminal law, but we have similarly interesting stuff over in the civil side. Some of you get excited talking about flying; I get excited over evidence, civil procedure, trial advocacy. :)
From Associated Press:
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. - A Florida appeals court on Tuesday questioned whether evidence found in the car of a former astronaut accused of making 1,000-mile drive to confront a romantic rival should be allowed at her trial on charges of attempted kidnapping.
Lisa Nowak is accused of trying to abduct a woman vying for the affections of the same space shuttle pilot in February 2007 at the Orlando International Airport. She has pleaded not guilty and is free on bond.
A lower court judge threw out Nowak's comments from a six-hour interview after her arrest, saying investigators took advantage of the former astronaut, who had not slept for more than 24 hours, coercing her into giving information. The judge also said evidence found in the car — including maps to alleged victim Colleen Shipman's home, large garbage bags, latex gloves and some soiled toddler-sized diapers — should not be allowed at trial because detectives used statements from the interview to find Nowak's car.
Nowak's attorney has said that the diaper's were her children's and that she did not wear them during her trip from Texas.
Prosecutors appealed the lower court's decision to toss out the evidence, and the three-judge state appellate court panel will make a ruling before Nowak's trial begins.
The appellate judges on Tuesday questioned whether Nowak waived her rights before the interview and what detectives knew before they searched her car.
Assistant Attorney General Kellie Nielan argued that Nowak voluntarily waived her Miranda rights by continuing to talk to detectives during the interview.
But Judge Richard Orfinger told Nielan that the state needed to prove that Nowak had waived her rights. Orfinger also questioned whether there was probable cause to search the car.
"Give me a snapshot in time of what law enforcement knew," Orfinger said, "before seeing what was in the car."
Nielan told the judges that detectives were allowed to search the car because Nowak stalked Shipman to the airport parking lot and tried to get into her car, then attacked her with pepper spray. Shipman, the girlfriend of former space shuttle pilot Bill Oefelein, was able to drive away.
Detectives were wondering, "was she going to talk to her or was she going to kill her?" Nielan said.
The panel of judges did not say when they would issue a decision.
Nowak, a Navy captain, was dismissed from the astronaut corps after her arrest and has since been on active duty at a Navy base in Corpus Christi, Texas.
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. - A Florida appeals court on Tuesday questioned whether evidence found in the car of a former astronaut accused of making 1,000-mile drive to confront a romantic rival should be allowed at her trial on charges of attempted kidnapping.
Lisa Nowak is accused of trying to abduct a woman vying for the affections of the same space shuttle pilot in February 2007 at the Orlando International Airport. She has pleaded not guilty and is free on bond.
A lower court judge threw out Nowak's comments from a six-hour interview after her arrest, saying investigators took advantage of the former astronaut, who had not slept for more than 24 hours, coercing her into giving information. The judge also said evidence found in the car — including maps to alleged victim Colleen Shipman's home, large garbage bags, latex gloves and some soiled toddler-sized diapers — should not be allowed at trial because detectives used statements from the interview to find Nowak's car.
Nowak's attorney has said that the diaper's were her children's and that she did not wear them during her trip from Texas.
Prosecutors appealed the lower court's decision to toss out the evidence, and the three-judge state appellate court panel will make a ruling before Nowak's trial begins.
The appellate judges on Tuesday questioned whether Nowak waived her rights before the interview and what detectives knew before they searched her car.
Assistant Attorney General Kellie Nielan argued that Nowak voluntarily waived her Miranda rights by continuing to talk to detectives during the interview.
But Judge Richard Orfinger told Nielan that the state needed to prove that Nowak had waived her rights. Orfinger also questioned whether there was probable cause to search the car.
"Give me a snapshot in time of what law enforcement knew," Orfinger said, "before seeing what was in the car."
Nielan told the judges that detectives were allowed to search the car because Nowak stalked Shipman to the airport parking lot and tried to get into her car, then attacked her with pepper spray. Shipman, the girlfriend of former space shuttle pilot Bill Oefelein, was able to drive away.
Detectives were wondering, "was she going to talk to her or was she going to kill her?" Nielan said.
The panel of judges did not say when they would issue a decision.
Nowak, a Navy captain, was dismissed from the astronaut corps after her arrest and has since been on active duty at a Navy base in Corpus Christi, Texas.
10-22-2008, 10:51 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: FDX 767 FO
Posts: 817
IMO, and I am no where near being a lawyer...
She was arrested and charged with attempted kidnapping, battery, attempted vehicle burglary with battery, and destruction of evidence. I think you can assume that through the course of normal investigation her car would have been found and searched. Probable cause would be established from the fact that she (most likely) used the car to get to the crime scene. I see no statement on what might have been in plain view which would have caused the police to open the trunk but I think that is easy to get around with the charges above. Her statement may of aided the police in getting to her car quicker but it was not the one and only means of finding the car and the items inside....again normal police investigation would have led to the car eventually. With my assumptions above, the search of the car should be legal and therefore, the items found should be used for/against her case.
Now the admissibility of her statements and the fact she may have waived her Miranda rights are a whole other story.
She was arrested and charged with attempted kidnapping, battery, attempted vehicle burglary with battery, and destruction of evidence. I think you can assume that through the course of normal investigation her car would have been found and searched. Probable cause would be established from the fact that she (most likely) used the car to get to the crime scene. I see no statement on what might have been in plain view which would have caused the police to open the trunk but I think that is easy to get around with the charges above. Her statement may of aided the police in getting to her car quicker but it was not the one and only means of finding the car and the items inside....again normal police investigation would have led to the car eventually. With my assumptions above, the search of the car should be legal and therefore, the items found should be used for/against her case.
Now the admissibility of her statements and the fact she may have waived her Miranda rights are a whole other story.
10-24-2008, 03:10 PM
#3
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 82
Inevitable discovery
FlyBoyd, you may not be a lawyer, but you've just given a very common sense explanation of the "inevitable discovery" doctrine that says evidence from an illegal search comes in if the evidence would have been inevitably discovered anyway.
I never cease to be amazed that people talk to the police when they've been arrested or otherwise obviously suspected of a crime. She's a senior military officer and smart enough to be an astronaut. You'd think when she heard those magic words, "You have a right to remain silent" she'd shut up.
I never cease to be amazed that people talk to the police when they've been arrested or otherwise obviously suspected of a crime. She's a senior military officer and smart enough to be an astronaut. You'd think when she heard those magic words, "You have a right to remain silent" she'd shut up.
10-24-2008, 09:00 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: The Far Side
Posts: 968
She's a senior military officer and smart enough to be an astronaut.
I mean no insult to officers or astronauts, but on the bell curve of intelligence for these groups, Lisa Nowak's data point is waaaay to the left side. Two-percenters like her are why NASA felt it had to publish a code of ethics for its astronauts.
Last edited by rotorhead1026; 10-24-2008 at 09:01 PM. Reason: apostrophe
10-25-2008, 05:42 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
She was a mission specialist. So, she had one area of expertise that she excelled in and like many experts, was book smart and street stupid.
And we don't have enough info to determine whether her car would have been inevitably found, but, from a newsclipping....sure sounds like there wasn't a search warrant requested.
Hmmm, I seem to recall something about searches from social studies. Seemed kind of important,
And the whole no sleep thing, there seems to be some discussion as to whether she waived her rights in the initial interview at all. So, the judge considered her sleep deprivition sufficient to question whether she was capable of waiving her rights and threw her statements out
And we don't have enough info to determine whether her car would have been inevitably found, but, from a newsclipping....sure sounds like there wasn't a search warrant requested.
Hmmm, I seem to recall something about searches from social studies. Seemed kind of important,
And the whole no sleep thing, there seems to be some discussion as to whether she waived her rights in the initial interview at all. So, the judge considered her sleep deprivition sufficient to question whether she was capable of waiving her rights and threw her statements out
10-25-2008, 07:54 PM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by kronan
She was a mission specialist. So, she had one area of expertise that she excelled in and like many experts, was book smart and street stupid.
I suppose nasa's screening process fell short in that they assumed that anyone who was good enough overall to compete for an astronuat slot would be completely level-headed. She actually flew in space, so in addition to the interview process, she completed new-hire training (one year), and at least a one-year mission workup...pretty intense stuff actually. It's surprisng that nobody noticed anything during all that.
10-26-2008, 06:02 AM
#7
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
It would seem that very bright people are just as likely to act on unchecked passions as any other group, and likely even more so because they are more accustomed to getting their way and achieving their goal without defeat. They are more frustrated when they fail because it can't happen to them. Perhaps NASA needs to realize that the very ones who are likely to enter their program are also the most passionate and emotionally involved with the result they obtain, and the least experienced in dealing with personal failure.
Last edited by Cubdriver; 10-26-2008 at 06:07 AM.
10-26-2008, 07:50 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: The Far Side
Posts: 968
It would seem that very bright people are just as likely to act on unchecked passions
Point well taken, but we're talking about a long drive (lots of time to reflect) and a modus operandi that was just moronic - really laughable, except it seems she was angry enough to kill the "other woman" (whether or not that was her overall intent). Whatever ... her life wasn't going according to HER plan, and she didn't have the emotional tools to handle it properly. "Stupid is as stupid does".
This is all IMHO, of course. Never met the woman (and don't want to) and I'm not a shrink.
10-26-2008, 08:01 AM
#9
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Cubdriver
It would seem that very bright people are just as likely to act on unchecked passions as any other group, and likely even more so because they are more accustomed to getting their way and achieving their goal without defeat. They are more frustrated when they fail because it can't happen to them. Perhaps NASA needs to realize that the very ones who are likely to enter their program are also the most passionate and emotionally involved with the result they obtain, and the least experienced in dealing with personal failure.
There is something to this, but years of service as a military officer should either ground you in reality or expose your fundamental weakness...she had to spend 15-20 years in a fishbowl before the navy would even let her apply to nasa.
At that level I don't think anyone gets there without having failed and learned how to deal with it somewhere along the line. Like skiing, if you don't fall down occassionally you're not trying hard enough...and those who ARE willing to risk the fall will beat you to the finish.
Maybe she's just plain nuts.
