SNOW HILL, Md. - Maryland's Court of Appeals is putting a four-year-old homicide case back in the courtroom.
The state's highest court says police violated the suspect's Miranda rights. The investigating authorities at the time included Det. Scott Mitchell of the Pocomoke Police Department and Lt. Michael McDermott of the Worcester County Sheriff's Office.
On March 6, 2008, 77-year-old William Nibblett was murdered in his Pocomoke Home. WBOC archives detail police charging Charles R. Phillips a week later.
Charging documents at the time show Phillips confessed to the murder, stabbing Nibblett after an argument about paying Phillips for work he had done at the house.
On April 1, 2008, a grand jury indicted Phillips, who was given a life sentence for murder and 20 years for armed robbery.
According to the opinion, the suspect was not re-read his Miranda rights as Mitchell and McDermott interviewed and talked to him. At one point, Phillips asked for an attorney. Eventually, he confessed to the murder on tape. It's evidence that former prosecutor Michael Farlow says was approved in pre-trial motions.
Now, the Worcester County State's Attorney's office is preparing for the retrial. State's Attorney Beau Oglesby says they believe Phillips will be reconvicted. Oglesby adds the office will likely not file an appeal to the decision.
I see McDermott screwed up another case. When is Worcester County Maryland going to learn, he is full of hot air. get him out of that delegate seat before he ruins us all here on the eastern shore.
ReplyDeletehow can he be a delegate for worcester county if he can't even conduct investigations
ReplyDeleteHold it. It says that Phillip's was not RE read his Miranda rights. This is something that should have been taken care of and dealt with before the trial in Worcester court. Seems to me the defense attorney certainly should have noticed and the States Attorney too at the time. So McDermott and Mittchell didn't drop the ball...
ReplyDeleteBesides, there is no chance Phillips will get his sentence changed. Stop blaming McDermott for everything. Most people are way past that.
Anon 2:52 I don't know how well you know McDermott but I been living in worcester county all my life and the McDermott i know should not be in charge of a dog show. He is not an honest person, he have no intrgrity and he's a very selfish person. If your friends with him my suggestion to you is get new friends.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with 7:10p McDermott is NOT AN HONEST person and he looks up the word honesty everytime someone mentions it cause he still doesn't know what it means...being in law enforcement he should have known that he had to re-read the miranda rights to that scum again...now the poor family has to endure another trial...where is the justice and exactly who is it working for???
ReplyDeleteHow do you know the Phillips guy is even telling the truth? HE'S the one you can't trust! And YES it is horrible that Nib's poor family has to endure this once again...Look, I knew Nib, I know the family and it breaks all of our hearts. It always will.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he was read his rights the second time and if not why didn't anyone know about this when the case was heard in Worcester County? Wasn't this case tried in Worcester County? Here's what I don't understand: where was the attorney for Phillips then?
So don't blame Mike. I'm sure he isn't the first to make this type of error. These issues are supposed to be noted BEFORE a trial begins. Maybe it was noted, I don't know. You see, that's the problem with news articles- you never get the complete story.
So give McDermott a break- or at least stop bashing him here. Concentrate on something else besides what a horrible person you seem to think he is.
The defense attorney did catch the error, but during the suppression hearing the prosecutor argued what happened was well within the law and the circuit court judge agreed.
ReplyDeleteEven when the state's first highest court the court of special appeals heard the case they agreed with the circuit court ruling. It wasn't reversed until it was heard at the highest level the court of appeals.
So for anyone to claim to know this was such an error that should have been known by all, they are clueless.
11:22 According to your logic then Farlow should have known also since he's the lawyer.