Almost exactly thirty years to the day after authorities found the body of a slain Georgia pastor, investigators say they’ve found their man.
On June 1, 1996, Jeff Davis County Sheriff’s Office deputies found the body of a 54-year-old man on the roof of the Full Gospel Church of Snipesville. The church’s pastor was working on roof repairs when someone shot him multiple times.
The investigation, which continued on and off for thirty years, eventually lead to the arrest of another man who’s currently serving a life sentence for an unrelated conviction.
No other details were available.
Statute of Limitations in Criminal Cases
Before we dive into the evidence that investigators might have used to break open this case, we should say something about the statute of limitations in criminal cases.
Murder and other serious felonies have no statute of limitations. Most felonies have a five-year statute of limitations, and the misdemeanor SOL is shorter. An arrest warrant tolls (pauses) the statute of limitations clock. Once authorities issue arrest warrants, those warrants are valid until served. We routinely have clients who missed court dates or committed other such petty infractions five or more years ago and wind up behind bars.
The informal statute of limitations may be more important. Key evidence becomes stale or unavailable. Witness statements are a good example of both these things.
Most people forget about 90 percent of what they see and hear in about forty-eight hours. So, prosecutors let witnesses review police reports to “refresh their memories.” If a witness doesn’t have independent recollection of an event (e.g. cannot recall any details not mentioned in official reports), that witness cannot testify in court.
On a related note, if justice isn’t swift and brutal, many alleged victims lose interest in the case. That’s especially true in property crime and assault cases. Technically, witnesses cannot “drop” criminal charges. However, prosecutors often take the attitude that if the alleged victim doesn’t care about the case, there’s no reason for me to care about it.
First Party Confession
A first-party confession may be the most common “break” in a hot, warm, or cold case. For a Marietta criminal defense lawyer, such a break is not always reliable, and at this stage, reliability, not accuracy, is all that counts.
Voluntary confessions appear 100 percent reliable on the surface. But below the surface, defendants sometimes have impure motives in these situations.
Obviously, that’s not always true. Sometimes, the guilt of committing a crime becomes overwhelming and motivates people to say, “I did it.” However, other times, attention, not remorse, is the primary motivation. For this reason, investigators often withhold a few details about a crime. If the confessor knows these details, that confession is probably genuine.
Involuntary confessions are a much more serious matter for a Marietta criminal defense lawyer. By “involuntary,” we mean that officers pressure a defendant into a confession. The law allows such pressure and coercion. But the law also draws a line that police officers cannot cross.
If officers fail to administer the Miranda rights, any confession or other evidence is inadmissible as a matter of law. These involuntary confessions are especially common when investigators ask a suspect to “clear up a few details.” The subsequent interrogation may seem very informal and perhaps even affable. But officers have a singular purpose, which is to extract damaging information from the suspect.
Pressure and coercion could also involve lying to a suspect. Officers might tell John they have DNA evidence placing him at the scene of the crime when they know no such evidence exists. Surprisingly, this tactic is legal in Georgia.
Nevertheless, a line still exists. For example, officers can only bluff. They cannot show John a fake DNA report. Additionally, the younger the suspect is, the less leeway officers have. In fact, some states don’t allow police officers to bluff juvenile suspects.
A bluff certainly affects the reliability of a confession. A judge must decide if the bluff made the confession unreliable.
Scientific Evidence
We discussed fake scientific evidence as an interrogation tool. Real scientific evidence could also break a case open. Once again, however, such evidence isn’t always reliable.
DNA and fingerprint evidence may be the most reliable scientific evidence. A good DNA or fingerprint sample conclusively belongs to one person. Many things make a sample “good,” such as a useable sample, accurate testing equipment, a proper testing environment, and a proper chain of custody. A breakdown in any area taints the results.
However, we should say that DNA and fingerprint evidence only proves location. It doesn’t necessarily prove intent and certainly doesn’t prove what happened.
CSI-type scientific evidence is at the opposite end of the reliability spectrum. This evidence includes items like:
- Clothing fibers,
- Tire tracks,
- Footprints,
- Material used (like the wood prosecutors used in the Lindbergh kidnapping trial), and
- Any scientific evidence with quality issues.
Investigators often effectively use such evidence to bluff suspects who’ve seen too many CSI reruns and believe that evidence is reliable. However, such evidence hardly ever holds up in court.
Third Party Information
Paid informers often restart stalled case investigations. The pay could be financial or non-financial, usually a promise of leniency in an unrelated case.
While informer statements are important because they can provide leads that may not be available through other sources, an informer statement alone is not always sufficient to secure a conviction. Courts generally require that such information be verified or supported by additional evidence, especially if the informer is anonymous or has a personal interest in the case.
The credibility of an informer is a key consideration in criminal proceedings. Factors such as the informer’s past reliability, motive, consistency, and the accuracy of the information provided are carefully assessed. In some jurisdictions, the identity of confidential informers is protected to ensure their safety and encourage the reporting of criminal activities. However, courts may order disclosure of an informer’s identity if it is necessary to ensure a fair trial for the accused.
Overall, informer statements play a significant role in the criminal justice system by assisting law enforcement in detecting and investigating crimes. At the same time, legal safeguards ensure that reliance on informer information does not undermine the rights of the accused. Balancing the protection of informers with the principles of fairness and justice remains an essential aspect of criminal law and procedure.
The longer an investigation takes, the harder it is to prove charges in court. For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Marietta, contact the Phillips Law Firm, LLC. We routinely handle matters in Cobb County and nearby jurisdictions.
