Opinion ID: 1947609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hearing on Admissibility of Informant's Testimony

Text: The trial court held a hearing on the motion to exclude the statements. Detective Rodger Persley of the Scott County Sheriffs Office was the only witness at the hearing. According to his testimony, Romano approached the government with an offer to provide information to the prosecution. Detective Persley stated at the hearing that he never instructed any of the jail personnel to talk to inmates about getting information from Appellant. Instead, he was contacted by one of the officers at the jail who told him that Romano had information about Appellant. Detective Persley met with Romano on April 20, 2004, and took a statement from him. Detective Persley next met with Romano on April 26 and had him sign a Memo of Understanding. The document, prepared by the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, consisted of a form (with spaces allotted for filling in the inmate's name, the officers' names and the defendant's name) which stated as follows, I John Romano have been instructed by Det. Rodger Persley and Det. Jack Patrick that I am not allowed to ask Roger McBeath Jr. questions about the crime he has been charged with. I may have normal conversations with him about everyday events (Example: sports, movies, etc.,) but I may only listen when he speaks about the crime or his defense to the crime. I will do my best to remember the words he uses and not use other words to describe the statements. I will not sign this memo until the officers have answered all the questions I have. Detective Persley thereafter met with Romano seven more times. Detective Persley had these statements transcribed. The statements do not appear in the record, but the transcripts were provided to defense counsel and were discussed at the hearing. Questioning of Detective Persley centered on the fact that Romano had asked questions of Appellant rather than listen as the memo directed. Detective Persley maintained at the hearing that Romano had not violated the Memo of Understanding because even though he had asked questions of Appellant, they were not direct questions about the offense. He acknowledged, however, that Romano engaged in conversation about the offense. Romano asked Appellant about the funeral of the victim. Romano asked Appellant about the time of the murder. Romano asked Appellant about the yellow gloves he was purported to have worn on the night of the offense. Detective Persley agreed this was a direct question about the crime. In addition, according to the transcripts, by the time Romano relayed his fourth statement to the police on May 14, Romano informed the detective that, when with Appellant, if I get him going, you know, I don't have to ask him any questions. At their next meeting on May 26, he told the detective that he had noticed that Appellant would get upset when he was on the phone, and so at those times Romano would mess with him. Romano said that he would tell Appellant to step into my office, that Romano wanted to talk to him, and would proceed to ask Appellant whether he was okay and what was, bothering him, and then Appellant would talk. In the next statement on June 15, Romano answered questions from Appellant, contrary to the admonition to just listen, and appeared to be trying to present Appellant with trial strategy. Finally, according to the June 28 transcript, Romano reported that he told Appellant that the fifth step in the Alcoholics Anonymous Program was to admit the exact nature of the wrong, and then told Appellant that if he wanted to say anything to Romano to make himself feel better he could. Detective Persley received word another time, on June 29, that Romano had a statement for him, but did not make contact with Romano again until September. Romano gave Persley a statement on September 9th in which he reported that Appellant confessed to the murder. Nowhere in the transcripts did Detective Persley or Detective Patrick inform Romano that he was not supposed to be interrogating Appellant. Detective Persley testified at the hearing, however, that before he taped each statement from Romano, he verbally informed Romano not to ask questions. Following the hearing, the court found that the hearing testimony revealed that Romano did ask questions of Appellant and reported the answers to Detective Persley. Though the trial court found that Romano was questioning Appellant, the court denied the motion of the defense to exclude Romano's testimony. The court found that Romano was not a government agent for any purpose. The trial court set forth its reasons: First, Romano contacted the prosecution about his role, not conversely. Second, the Commonwealth never caused Romano to be placed in closer proximity to the Appellant. Third, the Commonwealth in writing admonished Romano not to ask any questions.