New Developments in Case Against Alleged Baby Killer

July 20, 2011

By Jeff Skrzypek

SPRINGFIELD, Ore. — There are new developments in the case of the Springield woman accused of killing her infant son and throwing his body into a dumpster.  Angelica Swartout’s defense wants a judge to suppress incriminating statements Swartout made in the days leading up to her arrest.

Swartout’s lawyers say Springfield Police investigators violated both the state and Federal constitution in the manner detectives questioned Swartout, and that her “Miranda Rights” were violated from their first interaction.

According to court documents obtained by KEZI 9 News, the lawyers for Angelica Swartout want a judge to throw out any or all statements and evidence gathered by Springfield Police in the two days leading up to Swartout’s arrest.  She is charged with allegedly killing her newborn baby boy, Lucius.

“The officer used dishonest and misleading tactics in trying to talk with out client and lead her into saying things that aren’t true,” said Gordon Mallon, Swartout’s attorney.

According to the 30-page “motion to suppress,” prepared by her attorneys, Swartout was subjected “to a stop without reasonable suspicion” the day Springfield Police questioned her at the Crossland Motel.  The motel was Swartout’s place of work.  Swartout’s lawyers say their client, like any other ordinary person, didn’t feel free to leave or end the interaction after being confronted and directed by police officers.  That interaction also Included Sergeant David Lewis.

“We were at the initial stage to find out if anything had actually occurred. It’s no different from getting a tip or getting some kind of information that needs to be followed up on,” said Sergeant David Lewis, Springfield Police.

The document also alleges Swartout should have been read her “Miranda Rights” before the initial interaction with police on December 7th.  They also say that when they were read to her the following day, Swartout wasn’t in a position “to make a knowing and valid waiver of her right against self incrimination.”  Swartout’s lawyers say that’s a violation of her rights.

“When he says things like, you need to tell us the truth, that varies from you have the right to remain silent,” Mallon said.

Sergeant Lewis, though, is confident he and the other officers involved followed the law and are prepared to say so in court.

“We want to see this baby get a say and all we can do is follow the law and let the cards fall where they do,” Lewis said.

Lewis says he expects a judge to make a decision on the motion to suppress sometime in October.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

6 × 5 =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>