Opinion ID: 379222
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Language And Grammatical Differences Between The Two Confessions

Text: 241 A distinction between the two confessions strongly emphasized by Judge Garza is based on the wording of the confessions themselves. As the opinion states: 242 The correct grammar and composition of (the second confession) (is) . . . vastly different from that of the first. It would be impossible to conclude that the same person gave each confession verbatim. 243 Garza Op., p. 935 (emphasis added). For convenience, we reproduce both the first 21 and second 22 confessions in their entirety. 244 For a number of reasons, we disagree with Judge Garza's statement. To begin with, there is no suggestion by any witness or any Court below that the two confessions may differ with respect to the amount of input by Jurek. Every witness who discussed the language of the confessions discussed both confessions together. 23 In addition, the panel opinion, although quoting language from the second confession, did not distinguish between the two confessions. See 593 F.2d at 677 & n. 5. Likewise, Jurek's own brief to the en banc Court did not attempt to separate the two confessions for purposes of analyzing their language. See Jurek's En Banc Brief, at 33. Judge Garza's argument concerning language and grammar distinctions between the two confessions comes not from any of the Courts or witnesses below, but from his own de novo language and composition analysis. Appellate Judges should not be in the business of independently analyzing the grammar and sentence structure of confessions, just as they should not and do not make de novo analyses of fingerprints, blood samples, voice recordings or other real evidence. 245 In any event, the testimony adduced at trial and the confessions themselves simply do not support Judge Garza's conclusion. To begin with, we have County Attorney Post's undisputed evidence that he took down the second confession as best he could from Jurek's own words: 246 Q (By the Defense Attorney) Now, Mr. Post, just prior to the recess, I asked you if you would deliver to me the notes which you made, which you used to produce the statement which is marked for identification purposes as Exhibit No. 2. . . . Mr. Post, in examining this, I find that it's, with very few exceptions, word for word like the statement. Now, my question originally was: 247 Do you have any working notes, any just notations which you used and made at the time you were interrogating Jerry Jurek, which you used to compose this statement that was signed? Now, this is a rough draft of the statement. 248 A This is exactly what he gave me. I took it down. I have nothing else. 249 Q And you will tell this Court and this jury, and me, that this boy, sitting right here, just without any prompting from you, particularly, and in this chronological order, without any breaks, gave you this statement? 250 A In effect, yes. I asked him we had I had asked him, as I said, Mr. Nelson (a Texas rancher) and myself and Mr. Cheatham and Mr. Jacob (a cattle ranger). He then said he did no longer wish to stand on his first statement; he wished to change it. 251 I said, Jerry, tell me about it. 252 And he did. And if he would pause, I presume I'd say, What happened then? Or, Next? Keep going. 253 Other than that, it's exactly as what is there. 254 Q And you are not are you telling the Court that this is the language that this boy used when he talked to you, or is this your way of putting down your interpretation of what he said? 255 A As best I could, I put down exactly what he told me. 256 Q In the words that he used? 257 A As near as possible as I could, yes, sir. 258 Tr., Vol. VI, 1353-54. Since Jurek was required to come forth in the Federal habeas proceeding with facts to rebut this undisputed testimony, and since Jurek did not do so, this testimony by Post remains undisputed. 259 More importantly, a reading of the two confessions demonstrates that Judge Garza has grossly exaggerated language differences between the two confessions. Reasonably sophisticated sentences can be found in the first confession. E. g., 260 In the first part of this statement I called Richard Broz by his wrong first name and called him Mike; but his name was Richard. I have made this statement freely and voluntarily and nobody has forced me, threatened me or done anything to make me give this statement against my will. 261 On the other hand, the second confession hardly bears the stamp of a college English professor. E. g., 262 (W)hen Richard and Rickey and myself were riding around drinking beer we talked about getting some pussy. I talked about Shirley Kay Range and how I wanted to get with her and get some pussy. . . . When I am with the guys I talk about beer and pussy. 24 263 In addition, a reading of the second confession demonstrates as a matter of common sense that the prosecutors did not put words into Jurek's mouth. At one point the second confession states: I asked (Wendy) if she had ever had sex before and she said yes. Wendy's body was discovered on the morning of August 18, Tr., Vol. VII, 1648 (testimony of Raymond Tate), and an autopsy was thereafter performed that same day. The autopsy made clear that Wendy had never had sexual intercourse with anyone. Tr., Vol. VIII, 1536-37 (testimony of Dr. Paul Obert). At about 7:30 p. m. on the evening of August 18, Jurek made the second confession. The record is unclear as to whether the results of the autopsy were at that time available to Post. If they were, then Post would of course have known that Wendy had never had sexual intercourse. But even if the autopsy was not in Post's hands, common sense would have suggested to him that it would be extremely unlikely that ten year old Wendy Adams would have told Jurek that she had had sex before. In our view, the insertion of the above-quoted statement justifies the implied conclusion of all the Courts below, State and Federal, that the State was putting into the second confession whatever Jurek said regardless of its plausibility or lack thereof and was not drafting the confession for Jurek. 264 Considering the testimony of Post, along with the language of the confessions, their substance, and the fact that not a single witness or Court below on trial or habeas had ever suggested a distinction between the two based on composition and grammar, we believe that Judge Garza was unwarranted in making his own independent comparative analysis of the two confessions. 265