After filing motions Monday to suppress statements made by his client Anthony Torsell, attorney Joseph Amendola said yesterday he believes the motions have a reasonable chance for success.
Police said Torsell, 20, of Bellefonte, drove drunk south on South Atherton Street in the early morning of Oct. 28 and hit Penn State student Aaron Stidd and visitor Richard Smith, killing Smith and critically injuring Stidd.
The motion states that Torsell was too intoxicated to waive his Miranda rights and that statements he made to the police following the accident should be inadmissible.
Amendola said similar motions have been successful in defending his other clients in several DUI cases over the years.
The motion hopes to suppress these statements -- in which Torsell allegedly admitted to being the driver of the car and drinking alcohol that night -- because they provided the basis for the police's search of Torsell's vehicle and residence, and for Torsell's blood sample and failed field test.
If Torsell's statements are suppressed, the motion states that the court should throw out the charges facing him, including homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence, aggravated assault while driving under the influence, and driving under the influence of alcohol.
Jose Texidor, senior lecturer in crime, law and justice at Penn State, said in reviewing Amendola's challenge, he felt the only thing Amendola could benefit from is the possible exclusion of Torsell's statements, but nothing further.
He said the motion was probably something Amendola needed to do as an attorney, but said he was sure the prosecution would have much more evidence to work with.
"It's the old 'fruits of the poisonous tree' doctrine -- that if the original act is bad, then any derivative that may be connected to that act may be deemed bad as well," Texidor said. "I don't think that's going to work here, but I think that's what [Amendola]'s leaning on."
State College Police Sgt. Chris Fishel said the courts can reach different decisions about very similar cases when it comes to determining at what level of intoxication the accused is incapable of understanding their rights.
"It's a case-by-case basis based on the totality of the circumstances," Fishel said.
He said the issue of whether the individual believed that he was in custody at the time he made the statements often takes prevalence over the individual's ability to comprehend his Miranda rights.
According to Amendola's motion, Torsell "reasonably believed he was in custody and not free to leave the accident scene" at the time he was questioned by State College Police Cpl. William Muse and Officer Ted Hubler.
"If Anthony had attempted to leave, would Cpl. Muse have let him go? I suspect the answer is no," Amendola said.
If it is determined that Torsell was in custody at the time he made the statements, then the court must determine if he was too intoxicated to understand his right to remain silent, his right to an attorney and other constitutional rights.
Amendola said Torsell could not have been properly Mirandized with a .242 blood-alcohol content and said his conclusion is based primarily on how a commonwealth toxicologist described the effects of such a level of intoxication at Torsell's preliminary hearing.
A judge will make a decision regarding the motion at Torsell's pretrial hearing. A hearing date has not been set. Torsell's pretrial conference is scheduled for March 15.
