 |
A judge has ruled that most of an Aug. 18, 2015, interview of Brittany Pilkington can be used in her capital murder trial set to start March 18.
Presiding Logan County Common Pleas Judge Mark S. O’Connor found that Pilkington was “deliberately given” a second Miranda warning and informed she was being investigated for murder prior to a polygraph session with Rob Beightler.
O’Connor also found no evidence of coercive police activity up to that point, and during a subsequent session with Bellefontaine Police Det. Dwight Salyer.
However, he found that because of the length of the interrogations with the defendant continuing on without legal counsel, food, water and rest that the final interview with Bellefontaine Police Chief Brandon Standley and retired Detective Scott Sebring went too far.
“With the new evidence of the Defendant’s mental capacity, the Court finds the Defendant’s will was overborn (sic) by the time she was subjected to the fifth interview,” the judge wrote.
He has ruled it cannot be used at trial. However, the rest of the admissible interviews can be presented as evidence.
He also ruled investigators had enough information to believe a crime occurred to initiate the interviews and obtain a confession.
Pilkington, 25, is accused of killing her three sons during a 13-month period starting in July 2014.
Authorities say she admitted during the recorded hours-long interview that she smothered the boys as they slept, starting with infant Niall in July 2014 followed by Gavin, 4, on April 6, 2015 and infant Noah on Aug. 18, 2015.
If convicted, she could face a sentence of death.
O’Connor reopened a 2016 suppression hearing after Pilkington’s team of Kort Gatterdam, Marc Triplett and Tina McFall have presented affidavits and testimony from psychologist Dr. Howard Fradkin and neuropsychologist Dr. Jeffrey D. Madden that the confession was not voluntary because of her brain damage; history of physical, emotional and sexual abuse; and mental illness.
Logan County Prosecutor Eric Stewart countered in his brief that Pilkington had a history of court interactions and was familiar with law enforcement. She was asked open-ended questions and offered water, food and restroom breaks multiple times throughout the day, he noted.
She also was given her Miranda warning twice, acknowledging both times she understood, and, furthermore, she participated in the questioning, even contesting investigators or adding without prompting to her statements.
In his brief, Stewart divided the questioning into five parts to emphasize the breaks Pilkington was given and to differentiate between the investigators and their methodologies.
“If the defendant was under any stress at all it was the stress of knowing that she had killed her three sons and had gotten caught,” Stewart wrote.
“In addition, this isn’t an all or nothing analysis. The court should review each interview and apply the totality of the circumstances test to each one.
“Suppression would only be appropriate for the portion of the interview in which the court feels her will may have been overborne.”