PANAMA CITY — Defense attorneys argued Tuesday testimony about the murder of a 90-year-old Lynn Haven veteran should be suppressed because investigators allegedly violated the suspect’s rights to legal counsel and to remain silent.
In response, a prosecutor told a judge that investigators did violate the defendant’s right to remain silent, but not his right to an attorney.
David Challender, 28, was arrested at his father’s Caryville home in April of last year, bringing a close to a manhunt for the three suspects accused of 90-year-old Wallace Reid Scott’s violent death. The other two suspects — Ashley Griffin, 29, and Kevin Jeffries, 29 — have pleaded or been found guilty, respectively, for their roles in Scott’s slaying. Scott was bound and tortured in his Lynn Haven home before being murdered and then robbed April 4, 2013.
Authorities tracked Challender to Caryville on April 14 and charged him with an open count of murder, at which time he requested legal counsel, he said, but investigators continued to question him that day and the next.
“My immediate response was that I wanted an attorney; I don’t have nothing to say,” Challender testified Tuesday during a motion hearing on his request to suppress statements he made the day before.
However, four Bay County Sheriff’s deputies also took the stand and testified they respected his right to remain silent and did not recall hearing him ask for an attorney.
In a recorded statement taken the following day, when officers returned to question him, Challender halted questioning and did not ask to speak with an attorney. State prosecutor Larry Basford argued that if Challender asked for an attorney the previous day, it should have been present in his mind to ask again.
“Nowhere in the interview is the statement, ‘I want an attorney,’ “ Basford said. “They turn off the recorder, and (Challender) reinitiated the interview.”
Basford said Challender’s right to remain silent was violated but not his right to legal counsel, a difference that would not dictate the suppression of his statements.
Though both sides contradicted the other’s testimony, hard evidence does not exist to support either.
Since investigators did not have a signed waiver of his Miranda Rights, defense attorney Kim Jewell said, they should have ceased their line of questioning until an attorney was present. She supported her opinion with a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found police must cease interrogations — unless the suspect initiates further communication.
A time frame for when police can reinitiate contact with a suspect is not definite. In some cases, officers have reinitiated communication after about six hours. However, Jewell argued that since Challender asked for legal counsel more than 14 hours before, the investigators should not have returned to take a recorded statement.
“It’s a classic case of wearing down a defendant,” she said. “Actions by law enforcement are designed to elicit a response, and if they are not present they cannot get that.”
Jewell also requested the death penalty be taken off the table for Challender during the penalty phase of his trial, because Florida law allows a simple majority of the jury to levy the death penalty. Judge Brantley Clark denied her request.
Challender’s co-defendant, Jeffries, already has been sentenced to the death penalty. Clark will weigh in on the jury’s decision Friday at 9 a.m. during Jeffries’ sentence hearing.
Clark said he would decide in the coming weeks whether to allow statements Challender made after invoking his right to remain silent.
Challender’s case goes to trial Sept. 9.