Appeals court arguments set in son killing case

Appeals court arguments set in son killing case

Appeals court arguments set in son killing case

Print
Email
|

by Brian Skoloff, Associated Press

azfamily.com

Posted on April 9, 2014 at 5:17 AM

Updated Friday, Apr 11 at 6:33 AM

PHOENIX (AP) -- Arguments set for Wednesday before the state Court of Appeals could determine the outcome of a case against an Arizona mother whose 1990 conviction in the killing of her young son was overturned after she had spent more than two decades on death row.

Authorities say Debra Milke had two men shoot her 4-year-old son in the desert outside Phoenix in 1989. But an appeals court last year overturned her first-degree murder conviction, setting the stage for a 2015 retrial.

Milke has since been released on bond.

The original case against Milke rested largely on her purported confession, which now-retired Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate did not record. That left jurors with his word alone that she told him about her involvement. Milke has maintained her innocence and denied she ever confessed.

After hearing arguments, Judge Rosa Mroz granted Saldate's request to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify at Milke's retrial.

Prosecutors are now asking the state Court of Appeals to reverse that ruling and force him to take the stand again.

In its ruling overturning Milke's conviction, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited, in part, the prosecution's failure to reveal evidence that could have called Saldate's credibility into question.

The court cited numerous instances in which he committed misconduct in previous cases, including lying under oath and violating suspects' rights - details that were not provided to Milke's defense lawyers during her trial.

Saldate now claims he fears potential federal civil rights charges based on the appeals court accusations of misconduct.

Mroz's ruling allowing him to assert his Fifth Amendment right effectively gutted the state's case. Without Saldate's testimony, the judge said, the purported confession would most likely not be allowed at Milke's retrial.

"By allowing the witness to invoke `blanket' privilege, respondent judge's order prevents the witness from disclosing relevant information that is essential to the truth-seeking function of a trial," prosecutors wrote in their filing with the state Court of Appeals.

Oral arguments are set for Wednesday afternoon.

Defense attorneys are seeking dismissal of the entire case against Milke, noting in a previous motion that "the only direct evidence linking defendant to the crimes is the defendant's alleged confession to Saldate."

Saldate and his attorney have not returned repeated phone calls from The Associated Press.

Prosecutors argue that if Saldate doesn't testify again, it "will cause irrevocable harm to the state's ability to present its case and will deny the victims' constitutional rights to justice and due process."

They also contend that Saldate has not met the burden for establishing a reasonable fear of prosecution if he testifies, noting that county and federal prosecutors have said they don't plan any charges against him.

Saldate's attorney argued that prosecutors offered no guarantees that his client wouldn't face charges in the future.

The two men convicted in the child's death did not testify against Milke and remain on death row.

© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Print
Email
|