Live Coverage of Daphne Wright’s Appeal to Supreme Court
Live blog: Daphne Wright’s apperance before state Supreme Court | argusleader.com | Argus Leader
It’s in progress now.
Hat Tip to the former Argus reporter, Chuck Baldwin, who covered her first trial.
Update:
8:37 The South Dakota Supreme Court will convene at the University of South Dakota Law School at about 9 a.m. this morning to hear arguments in the appeal of Daphne Wright, convicted of the 2006 kidnapping and murder of Darlene VanderGiesen.
Wright is appealing on several issues, including whether the trial court should have allowed the suppression of statements she made during an interview with law enforcement and whether Wright’s kidnapping conviction violate double jeopardy.
8:43 Media access to the courtroom is restricted to the media room. It’s impossible to see the audience or both tables where the attorneys for Wright and the Attorney General’s office sit. Attorneys for both sides are settled and mulling over paperwork as the audience settles in.
The audience consists of lawyers from Sioux Falls, law students and past and former judges.
8:51 Cameras set up outside the newsroom pan the courtroom. VanderGiesen’s parents are here, sitting near in the front. Technicians tinker with last minutes fixes to the audio feed and cameras.
9:03 The court is seated and gives Wright’s lawyer, Minnehaha County Public Defender Traci Smith walks to the lecturn. She is given 20 minutes to make her arguments.
9:04 Smith begins her arguments by describing some activities of Wright during her police interview.
9:05 Smith said that Wright was not read her Miranda rights and not told when a lawyer for her arrived at the Law Enforcement Center in Sioux Falls in February 2007.
9:06 “She had written several notes to the law enforcement detective … on those pages … in the record there are several written requests for a lawyer,” Smith said.
9:14 State’s theory of the case used those statements against Wright made during that interview, which Smith argues should not have been used because of how the police conducted the interview.
9:17 Smith has moved on to another issue: the voluntariness of Wright’s statements to police
9:21 Wright’s prompt access to a waiting attorney, and she didn’t feel free to leave the law enforcement center, and detective kept cutting off the Wright’s interpreter, Smith said. All this may raise the question whether Wright’s statements to police were voluntary or not.
9:22 Justice Meierhenry moves Smith to the issue of interpreters used during Wright’s trial.
9:30 [Comment From John]
They must believe there is a possibility of her release or today’s hearing wouldn’t be happening
To read the rest, click Live blog: Daphne Wright’s apperance before state Supreme Court | argusleader.com | Argus Leader
Live blog: Daphne Wright’s apperance before state Supreme Court | argusleader.com | Argus Leader
It’s in progress now.
Hat Tip to the former Argus reporter, Chuck Baldwin, who covered her first trial.
Update:
8:37 The South Dakota Supreme Court will convene at the University of South Dakota Law School at about 9 a.m. this morning to hear arguments in the appeal of Daphne Wright, convicted of the 2006 kidnapping and murder of Darlene VanderGiesen.
Wright is appealing on several issues, including whether the trial court should have allowed the suppression of statements she made during an interview with law enforcement and whether Wright’s kidnapping conviction violate double jeopardy.
8:43 Media access to the courtroom is restricted to the media room. It’s impossible to see the audience or both tables where the attorneys for Wright and the Attorney General’s office sit. Attorneys for both sides are settled and mulling over paperwork as the audience settles in.
The audience consists of lawyers from Sioux Falls, law students and past and former judges.
8:51 Cameras set up outside the newsroom pan the courtroom. VanderGiesen’s parents are here, sitting near in the front. Technicians tinker with last minutes fixes to the audio feed and cameras.
9:03 The court is seated and gives Wright’s lawyer, Minnehaha County Public Defender Traci Smith walks to the lecturn. She is given 20 minutes to make her arguments.
9:04 Smith begins her arguments by describing some activities of Wright during her police interview.
9:05 Smith said that Wright was not read her Miranda rights and not told when a lawyer for her arrived at the Law Enforcement Center in Sioux Falls in February 2007.
9:06 “She had written several notes to the law enforcement detective … on those pages … in the record there are several written requests for a lawyer,” Smith said.
9:14 State’s theory of the case used those statements against Wright made during that interview, which Smith argues should not have been used because of how the police conducted the interview.
9:17 Smith has moved on to another issue: the voluntariness of Wright’s statements to police
9:21 Wright’s prompt access to a waiting attorney, and she didn’t feel free to leave the law enforcement center, and detective kept cutting off the Wright’s interpreter, Smith said. All this may raise the question whether Wright’s statements to police were voluntary or not.
9:22 Justice Meierhenry moves Smith to the issue of interpreters used during Wright’s trial.
9:30 [Comment From John]
They must believe there is a possibility of her release or today’s hearing wouldn’t be happening
To read the rest, click Live blog: Daphne Wright’s apperance before state Supreme Court | argusleader.com | Argus Leader
March 25th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Will she be released if …. *Puzzled* Not comfy if she gets out of jail and waits for a new trial.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Wow…..I’ve been following this story on and off. I hope Supreme Court would take into the consideration on the defendant’s right access to the correct kind of interpreter even though she may be guilty of the crime that she committed.
Let’s see how it progresses…..
InsaneMisha
March 25th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Diane, she was in jail prior to the first trial. I doubt she will be released on bail if she got a chance for a new trial.
InsaneMisha, yes, her not getting fair trial was very obvious to me and other Deaf people. Even though many of us think she is guilty, she has the right to a fair trial. She shouldn’t be penalized due to the failure of hearing people to recognize her civil rights as a Deaf person.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:54 am
I agree since she should have a fair trail regardless to due process. It is the right way to show the due process that the court should remedy to the defendant’s needs to be met. Also, I agree she can’t go free since it’s already set the precedent in the first place due to the evidence. That’s what I recall in the law unless that state law may state otherwise.
InsaneMisha
March 25th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I agree … Even Daphne is guilty (It is so obviously), she must gets a fair trial due the hearing people who failed to recognize her civil rights.
Due to a plenty evidences, I would like to see her to stay in jail in the processing of getting a new trial. Yes It is a time consuming and waste money – but I want to hearing people to be educated. They are so ignorant.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Even if she gets a fair trial, would it make any difference?
Look at a bigger picture: a human being whose life was wrongly taken away and her family is still suffering. Obviously, the concern for Daphne is greater than the victim’s family.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Will the trial make any difference? We are wondering the same thing, too : /
The parents of the victim have already forgiven Daphne Wright prior to the first trial. The generous spirit of the parents amazed me.
March 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“Look at a bigger picture: a human being whose life was wrongly taken away and her family is still suffering.”
That is not looking at the bigger picture.
The “bigger picture” is that EVERYONE receive due process. Due process is bigger than all of us and is the heart and soul of a modern democratic republic.