Conflicting witness statements, some Miranda law stuff and a new board game...

Yesterday we discovered that a key witness in the Michelle Spence-Jones case had recanted her testimony about a document that the prosecution used against Spence-Jones being forged.  What's the prosecution going to do now that a key component of their case, the document that they allege Spence-Jones forged to get $50k in county grant money, is indeed genuine?  Why would the witness who first testified that the document was forged now turn around and say it was indeed her signature on the letter recommending that Spence-Jones get the grant money?  Our theory is that the witness, Barbara Carey-Shuller was somehow pressured into telling the state that the document was forged in order to get herself out of some sort of hot water, just a theory though but it is plausible.  Which leads us to this quote from the Justice Building Blog's discussion of the reading of Miranda Rights to a witness... 

Miranda warnings are a formality of arrest and are required only at the time of an arrest or prior to custodial interrogation. Further, the warnings are associated in the public mind with the spectacle of an individual being placed under arrest. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that an individual who is given Miranda warnings during what begins as a consensual encounter may interpret those warnings as a restraint on his or her freedom....

Based on our above discussion, we believe that the reading of Miranda warnings during a consensual police encounter might add to the coercive nature of that encounter under at least some circumstances. ...

No kidding?  Am I reading that right or does it say that a witness will freak the fcuk out when they're read the Miranda rights during an interview and might think they're going to get locked up?  That sure as hell sound like it doesn't it?  We've already learned that Detective Baluja read the key witness in the Barrera mortgage fraud case her Miranda rights before he started her interview...

...and we know the witness was scared shitless afterwords...

And now we can go one step further, when the defense attorneys who deposed the states "key witness" in the Barrera fraud asked her about the typewritten statement she gave which consisted of a series of questions and answers, she says...
 

UH OH! She says she wasn't even asked those questions that were on her statement! WTF?! We already know who wrote that statement don't we? Detective Baluja answered that question a while back...

We got some big problems now don't we? A critical statement from a key witness that for some reason or another is written by the prosecutor, a statement that the witness doesn't even recognize as being her own. WTF? Why wasn't this case dropped shortly after the deposition was taken back in April 2009 when this fatal flaw in the states case was discovered? That's a question that ASA Kostrzewski is gonna answer in the very near future. More importantly though, why is the prosecutor writing a statement for a witness based on questions that the witness says she was never asked? Tisk, Tisk Bill. This doesn't bode well for you and your license to practice law and Jorge, be patient I haven't forgotten about you, we're going to wait for one Internal Affairs investigation to be over before we start another one.

Enough with this for now, it's Friday, the weekend is here and it's time for some recreation. Considering the crappy weather, I've planned ahead an and got a board game for me and my kids to play this weekend, should be fun...