debra milke

Debra Milke’s Murder Case Dismissed After 25 Years

The case against Debra Milke, who spent more than 20 years on death row for the murder of her four-year-old son, has been dismissed by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge.

Milke was convicted of murder in 1990 for accompanying two men into the desert and shooting her son in the head. These charges were overturned by a federal court in 2013 due to an issue with the detective at the time, Armando Saldate, who reportedly had several incidents of misconduct.

Saldate claimed that Milke confessed to murdering her son during an interview, but there were no witnesses at the time, and the proposed confession was never recorded. He declared in March 2014 that he would not testify in Milke’s retrial.

As a result, Milke’s defense filed to dismiss her case with prejudice so that she could not be tried again by prosecutors, and it was successfully dismissed during a brief hearing in Phoenix on Monday, March 23.

“I always believed this day would come I just didn’t think it would take 25 years, 3 months and 14 days to rectify such a blatant miscarriage of justice,” Milke said.

Milke has maintained her innocence and denied ever telling Saldate she was involved in the murder of her son.

The two men who were convicted in her son’s murder remain on death row and did not testify against her in the past.

Although prosecutors recently bid for a retrial, the Arizona Supreme Court’s rejected this request, and Milke’s attorneys said her case is over now besides a few small matters, like meeting with her probation officer and removing her monitoring bracelet.

Key Witness Will Not Testify in Milke Trial

Former Phoenix police detective Armando Saldate will not testify again during the retrial of Debra Milke, scheduled for February 2015, according to the Huffington Post.

Saldate was the lynchpin in the original trial against Milke, testifying that Milke had confessed to killing her four-year-old son with two other men in the desert in 1989.

This confession has held extreme importance in this case because it is the only connection between Milke and the murder. The confession violated Milke’s rights as she did not waive her rights to have an attorney present at the time of the interrogation, and the proposed confession was never recorded, courts determined. Debra Milke

The entire case has been a game of his word against hers and, in the process, Milke has spent over two decades of her life in prison while Saldate, who has been accused by the court of misconduct in various occurrences, was granted his right to the fifth amendment which gives him protection against self incrimination.

“The court finds that Saldate has demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of danger that, if compelled to answer, he would face criminal charges,” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz wrote. Mroz also states she did “not fully agree” with every allegation the appeals court made against Saldate.

Milke has maintained her innocence and denied she ever told Saldate she was involved in the murder of her son.

This case is now facing many new challenges as the Saldate interrogation was the key piece of evidence in helping to prove Milke’s innocence. She was released over a year ago due to unreliable evidence, and her defense is now arguing that the case be dismissed because that purported confession is the only evidence connecting Milke to the murder.

The two men who were convicted in her son’s murder remain on death row and did not testify against her in the past.

The defense argued in a motion that Milke’s trial should be dismissed with prejudice, so that prosecutors can’t try her again, KTAR reports from the Associated Press.

Milke is still released on bond and awaits trial in February 2015.

Milke Case: Is Double Jeopardy a Factor?

The defense attorney of Debra Milke, a woman who has served 23 years in prison for the death of her son and was released from death row last year, claims that retrying Milke in court because of the prosecution’s withholding of evidence in the initial trial would violate her Fifth Amendment rights.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Milke’s case when it was found that the state did not turn over evidence of misconduct by their key witness, Armando Saldate Jr., in the emotionally-charged 1990 trial. The evidence would have allowed the defense to question the witness’s credibility. Debra Milke

Saldate, a Phoenix police detective at the time, told jurors that Debra Milke confessed to the 1989 killing of her son when he questioned her, which was a key piece of evidence in the case. After Milke’s conviction, the court found that Milke never waived her right to have an attorney present in the interrogation.

The court accused Saldate of multiple occurrences of misconduct and eradicated many of his confessions in the case and other cases because he lied under oath and violated Milke and other defendants’ constitutional rights.

The overturned case now faces a new problem: the defense claims that retrying Debra Milke in court would be “double jeopardy”, violating her Fifth Amendment right of not being tried twice for the same offense.

Saldate is attempting to refuse to testify at Milke’s retrial by asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In December, a judge sided with Saldate, although prosecutors are currently challenging the ruling.

Why would Saldate choose to plead the fifth?

If Saldate changes his testimony now from what he said in the original trial, he could face criminal charges for violating Milke’s rights. If he maintains the same testimony, he could be pursued for perjury charges based on the appellate court’s evaluation that his testimony may not have been credible – including a concurring opinion by Justice Kozinski indicating he believed the confession probably had never taken place.

Until further notice, Milke’s retrial is set for February 2, 2015.

Accountability and Credibility of Arizona Prosecutors

Recently revisited cases of Debra Milke and now Drayton Witt are raising questions regarding the accountability and credibility of Arizona prosecutors.

Milke spent more than 20 years in prison after being accused and convicted in 1989 of conspiring to commit murder, murdering, kidnapping and abusing her four-year-old son and was later sentenced to death. Milke’s case has been highly publicized, and she is awaiting a retrial due to a mistake made in the earliest stages of her original conviction.

A Miranda waiver was never signed by Milke, meaning that she never gave up her right to remain silent. This crucial detail potentially voids the unrecorded police interview with former Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate Jr. in which he claimed that Milke confessed to plotting to murder her son. Armando Saldate

Saldate has had a history of misconduct including four other instances of lying under oath and other ethical issues. According to Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who overturned Milke’s conviction this spring, during her trial, “‘no … witnesses or direct evidence (linked) Milke to the crime’ other than Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate Jr.,” CNN reports. More on Saldate’s misconducts in the Milke case and others have been reported by the Phoenix New Times.

The Associated Press reported that “Debra Milke has not been exonerated, but a judge granted her a $250,000 bond Thursday, meaning she could go free while preparing for a new trial in the case.”

Drayton Witt was accused and convicted of shaking his girlfriend’s four-month-old son, Steven Holt, to death in 2002. He spent 10 years in prison, but Witt’s case resurfaced in 2012 when the Arizona Justice Project, a part of the Innocence Network that reevaluates child death cases, and pediatric surgeon and developer of Shaken Baby Syndrome Norman Guthkelch conducted further investigations.

Their research determined that Holt’s death could have been caused by various factors, including prior illnesses like an obstructed vein near his brain and history of seizures caused by unexplained neurological issues, and not SBS alone.

The Arizona Republic reported in an article from October 2012 that the case’s original medical examiner, Dr. A.L. Mosley “would if he could testify again, conclude that the baby died of diseases, not abuse.”

After a decade in prison, Witt’s case was dismissed although he may still face possible legal disputes.

Both the Milke and Witt cases make clear the need for an updated system that keeps prosecutors and police accountable for any mistakes and wrongful convictions. The American Bar Association sets the standard for ethical conduct to those in the legal profession, and the Arizona Justice Project is petitioning to update Arizona’s bar because of cases like these, and many others.

Similar cases reported by the Phoenix New Times include those of Lisa Kathleen Randall, an Arizona daycare owner, who was accused of shaking to death one of the children in 2007 and Audrey Edmunds, a Wisconsin babysitter convicted of killing a 7-month-old. Each of their cases were revisited and eventually dropped or reversed after new medical evidence was found, disputing previous convictions.

The ABA Ethical Rule 3.8 states that if “new, credible, and material evidence” are discovered by prosecutors, that evidence must be disclosed to the defendant and “undertake further investigation or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offence that the defendant didn’t commit.”

The Phoenix New Times reports that the prosecutor for both the Milke and Witt cases, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, is fighting against changes to ethical rule 3.8 for the State Bar of Arizona. The bar is trying to institute a rule that makes prosecutors responsible for disclosing any new information received that may exonerate the person. Montgomery is against this.

Why?

At this time, if you are convicted today and then someone approaches a prosecutor at a later date to confess, the prosecutor is under no obligation to do anything. The amendment to ethical rule 3.8 wants to change that. If adopted, it would make it impossible to continue going after people once new information has been received, thereby making an attempt an ethical complaint.

Of course, Montgomery wants to keep Milke behind bars, and as reported in the same Arizona Republic article mentioned above, he still believes Witt is guilty of murdering Holt saying, “Obviously, we believed it the first time around.”

So what if he believed it the first time around? What about now? Shouldn’t prosecutors be unbiased in their convictions and base any judgements solely on facts to make the fairest decision possible?

At Corso Law Group, we believe the system should try to remain balanced by holding police and prosecutors accountable for their actions and encouraging them to strive for the highest level of credibility by accepting criticism, taking responsibility for any wrongdoings and correcting them to their greatest ability.

Instead, it seems as though many prosecutors today are worried more about saving face and counting their winnings rather than advocating for fair trials.

The Case of Debra Milke

In the United States, individuals who are suspected of a crime are supposed to remain innocent until proven guilty. But what happens when the evidence used to convict faces its own scrutiny years later?

That question will once again take center stage in Arizona this year as an Arizona mother is re-tried for a highly publicized crime committed almost 24 years ago.

On January 18, 1991, Debra Jean Milke was sentenced to death for her involvement in the conspiracy to murder her four-year-old son, Christopher. Milke was convicted and sentenced to death based on a verbal confession she gave to a police detective – a detective whose own actions would be called into question years later.

After spending 22 years in prison, Milke’s murder conviction was overturned earlier this year and she was ordered to be released. Less than three months later, a retrial of Milke’s case was ordered.

Debora Milke

As defense attorneys and former prosecutors, we know that a retrial is difficult in a case like this simply because so much time has passed. People move away or die, and original evidence can sometimes be unusable. This case will be especially difficult because of the lack of evidence against the defendant when the case first went to court. Factor in the changed circumstances and motives for other witnesses and the ability to win a retrial becomes even harder.

A trip to visit Santa

According to court documents, Milke and her four-year-old son, Christopher, shared an apartment with James Styers. While Milke worked at an insurance agency, Styers watched Christopher.

In September 1989, shortly after beginning a new job, Milke took out a $5,000 life insurance policy on Christopher as part of her employee benefit plan. The policy named Milke as the beneficiary. Sometime between the time she bought the policy and the time of Christopher’s death, Milke and Styers discussed the policy and the benefits.

On Saturday, December 2, 1989, Styers, with Milke’s permission and use of her car, took Christopher from the apartment. Styers told Christopher they were going to Metrocenter so Christopher could see Santa Claus. Styers then picked up Roger Scott, and the two men and Christopher had lunch and ran some errands.

Later, Styers told police that he first dropped Scott off and then took Christopher to Metrocenter to see Santa Claus. Styers told the police he had to use the restroom, so he took Christopher into the men’s room at Sears and had him wait outside the stall.

According to Styers, that’s when Christopher disappeared. Styers reported this scenario to Metrocenter security; eventually the police were called. In this initial testimony, Styers claimed that he met Scott outside of Sears while looking for Christopher, that Scott told him that he had come to Metrocenter with a friend named Phil, that Styers and Scott looked for Christopher, and that Styers eventually walked Scott to the bus stop and Scott went home.

The Phoenix police interviewed Scott. His first story coincided with Styers’, but ultimately Scott led police to Christopher’s body. After that, a Phoenix police detective interviewed Milke. She was told that her son had been found shot to death in the desert and that she was under arrest.

Milke told police that she did not have a $5,000 life insurance policy on Christopher, but her father did. She denied that insurance money was her motivation, but admitted that it may have been Styers’ and Scott’s because Styers knew of the policy. Milke was taken into custody.

A question of evidence

A lack of physical evidence pervaded Milke’s case and trial. The only evidence that could provide motive for the murder were the inconsistencies in her testimony about Christopher’s life insurance policy: Milke initially denied having a life insurance policy on Christopher, which later changed. Milke later admitted to purchasing Christopher’s life insurance policy.

The inconsistencies of Milke’s statement lead the trial court to believe the insurance policy was the motive behind killing Christopher.

According to an article written by the New York Times, Phoenix police Detective Armando Saldate said Milke confessed to plotting the boy’s death in an unrecorded conversation while they were alone. Milke denied confessing, making his account of what happened a case of he said, she said.

Based on this testimony, Milke was convicted of ordering Christopher’s death to claim a share of the insurance policy she had taken out on him.

“The credibility of Armando Saldate should have been called into question before now,” said an attorney. “Saldate has a documented record of perjury and tainting confessions, who is to say that Saldate’s account of Debra Milke’s unrecorded confession was accurate?”

Another source, Injustice Anywhere, states the warning signs that Milke was wrongfully convicted as defined by the Michigan Law University and Northwestern Law:

Co-Defendant Confessed (CDC) – A co-defendant of the exoneree, or a person who might have been charged as a co-defendant, gave a confession that also implicated the exoneree.

False Confession (FC) – The exoneree falsely confessed if (1) he or she made a false statement to authorities which was treated as a confession, (2) the authorities claimed that the exoneree made such a statement but the exoneree denied it, or (3) the exoneree made a statement that was not an admission of guilt, but was misinterpreted as such by the authorities.

Inadequate Legal Defense (ILD) – The exonoree’s lawyer at trial or on appeal provided obviously and grossly inadequate representation.

Official Misconduct (OM) – Police, prosecutors, or other government officials significantly abused their authority or the judicial process in a manner that contributed to the exoneree’s conviction.

Perjury or False Accusation (P/FA) – A person other than the exoneree falsely accused the exoneree of committing the crime for which the exoneree was later exonerated, either in sworn testimony or otherwise.

As Milke’s case goes back to trial, she faces being sent to death row once again. And the questionable confession used to convict her almost a quarter century ago will once again be called into question.

Award Logo
Award Logo
Award Logo
Award Logo
Award Logo