Opinion ID: 4556238
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: January 2010 Interview

Text: In January 2010, Cooper agreed to take part in another interview with the police.1 (5/5/11 Tr., R. 5.13, Page ID 804; 5/6/11 Tr., R. 5.14, Page ID 819-20.) During this questioning Cooper inquired about both the availability of immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines. (5/5/11 Tr., R. 5.13, Page ID 804.) He also told detectives: “I can’t say anything right now because if I say anything right now I know you’ll have to arrest me on the spot.” (Id.) Later in the interview, the detectives told Cooper that they believed he had committed the murder. To this, Cooper responded, “hypothetically let’s say [Anderson] . . . put me up to this. I broke into the house. I shoot the guy, is that what you’re saying?” When Detective Wehby answered “[y]es,” Cooper reportedly “just smiled.” (Id., Page ID 805). However, he did not make any denials of his involvement. Subsequently, though, Cooper asked the detective if they had identified a gun from the murder. When the detectives responded no, Cooper stated: “well then all you got is circumstantial evidence.” (Id., Page ID 805-06.) Finally, Cooper informed police that he wished to end the interview, go home, and make preparations with his wife for what was coming, including transferring property into her name. (Id., Page ID 806). However, because the detective now had a warrant, prior to Cooper leaving, 1Detective Wehby testified that the three-year delay between the first and second custodial interviews was related to the detectives’ information-gathering efforts and a change of administrations at the prosecutor’s office. (5/9/11 TR., R. 5.15, Page ID 833). No. 18-1391 Cooper v. Chapman Page 6 they were able to collect a DNA sample from him. They also advised him that he would be arrested at their next encounter. (Id.; 5/6/11 Tr., R. 5.14, Page ID 820.)