Yesterday marked Day 12 - exactly one dozen weekdays since the start of the juvenile adjudication hearing in the vicious beating of Sarah Kreager aboard a Maryland Transit Administration bus Dec. 4.
Kreager, who is white, was attacked by a group of black students from Robert Poole Middle School. Also attacked were Kreager's boyfriend Troy Ennis - also white - and the MTA bus driver, who's black.
Nine students were charged with assault. Hearings for three have been postponed and charges against them may be dropped, leaving six to go before Judge David W. Young.
The crime made national news. The interracial angle of the attack was emphasized. The students charged that Kreager spit on a girl from Robert Poole and actually started the fight. All those questions were supposed to be answered starting Jan. 31, the day the hearing began.
But more than two weeks later, the official hearing hasn't even begun. Young has, for the better part of 12 days, spent his time listening to testimony about why he should suppress statements the students gave to MTA police, the identifications Kreager and Ennis made from photo arrays and identifications Kreager and Ennis made at the scene of the attack.
Defense lawyers for the six - assistant public defender Margaret Desonier, Barbara Greene, Garland Sanderson, Jerry Tarud, Kimberly Thomas and Donald Wright - made motions the first day for Young to rule the statements and identifications inadmissible.
I'll put the kibosh on any of you inclined to make lawyer jokes right now: All these attorneys had every right to make these motions, and should have made them. To do less would not be giving their clients the benefit of the best defense possible.
That being said, I'll add this: Brother, is this ever a lengthy process!
I have developed over the past 12 court sessions probably the worst case of bench buns I've ever had, and I'm usually a fixture at high school wrestling tournaments. It was the motion to suppress the statements of the defendants (called "respondents" in juvenile court-ese) that took the longest.
All the defense attorneys argued that their clients either made the statements under duress and coercion, didn't fully understand their Miranda rights and should have had their parents there when they were questioned.
Miranda ensures that a suspect is informed of his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning.
Young had to hear testimony from each MTA detective who read Miranda rights to one of the juveniles. Sometimes this involved having the taped interview played back in court, with parts redacted where the interviewee apparently implicated others. (Note: I heard five of the six statements played in court; all of the students said that Kreager either spit on one girl or threw the first punch, which started the fight.) After the Miranda rights were explained, all six of the juveniles waived their right to remain silent or have a lawyer. None had a parent present during questioning.
There were times when Young, an erudite, pleasant and patient man, had a look on his face that seemed to say he really didn't need all this.
And all this could have been avoided. Why leave it to the police to determine whether or not a juvenile understands his or her Miranda rights? Couldn't the state legislature pass a law requiring that a parent be present when a juvenile suspect is read his or her Miranda rights?
On one of the taped statements, a detective asked a girl if the fight with Kreager and Ennis was justified. The girl didn't know what the word justified meant. The same detective had to explain to another girl what her initials were, and she had trouble understanding the statement "I agree to answer questions, and I do not want an attorney at this time." Can juveniles who can't understand these simple words, phrases and sentences intelligently waive their Miranda rights?
There is no simple yes-or-no answer. For the record, Young ruled all but one of the respondents' statements admissible. But the state legislature could have helped him out a little bit by passing a law that doesn't leave the matter up for debate. Just require a parent to be there and maybe these motions never come up.
But come up they did, perhaps to torment Young for 12 days. But I'm sure he sees a bright side: those motions could have been made for nine respondents instead of six.
gregory.kane@baltsun.com