Oklahoma Criminal Defense Blog

Suzanne Wooten was sworn in as judge of the Texas 380th District Court in January, 2009. She defeated Charles Sandoval in the 2008 Republican primary. Sandoval had held the judgeship for the 12 previous years and had never previously had an opponent.  The 380th District Court is in McKinney, Texas, in Collin County, the county immediately north of Dallas County.

Collin County District Attorney John Roach has been investigating now-Judge Wooten, apparently for election fraud.  This investigation has been going on for a year, and Peter Schulte, a lawyer representing Judge Wooten says that is too long to keep her under a cloud of suspicion.  Roach’s office has presented evidence to several grand juries, but has never asked the grand jury for an indictment.

In Texas, as in United States District Court, all criminal charges must come for the indictment of a grand jury.  Oklahoma law permits, in addition to proceeding by indictment, the signing of an Information by the prosecuting attorney to initiate such charges.  Without an indictment, there are no criminal charges. Grand juries are in session for only so long, to be replaced by a grand jury with different members.  The grand jury that hears the evidence must act on that evidence to decide whether to indict.

Now Judge Wooten, through her lawyers, has filed an objection to this continuing saga in a 12-page document.  She claims Roach is seeking her resignation, saying this latest grand jury, possibly the fifth grand jury to be used to invade her private, personal and professional life for purely political, harassment and/or intimidation purposes.  She claims the judge she defeated, Charles Sandoval, met with district attorney supervisors the day after the election and said Sandoval believed the only reason he lost was that Wooten “must have cheated.”  She offered to talk to prosecutors several times but was not accommodated.  According to Peter Shulte, Assistant District Attorney Chris Milner, chief of the special crimes unit, mentioned election fraud but refused to give any specific allegations that were being investigated.  Milner allegedly encouraged Wooten to resign, and Schulte claimed, even urged Wooten to resign immediately before authorities took “her law license, her family, her home, her liberty and her reputation.”  If those words were indeed used, that is the most gross of threats. It is so strong, it sounds like a bluff.

Roach asked the Texas attorney general’s office a year ago to assign a prosecutor to the investigation.  Assistant Attorney General Harry White wanted Judge Wooten to appear before the grand jury a week ago, but a judge ruled that the grand jury’s term ended and evidence would have to be presented to a future grand jury.  District Attorney Roach says he is not directing White’s investigation.  Another grand jury begins this month.

Now three former prosecutors who served under District Attorney John Roach have criticized the lingering investigation.  Sharon Curtis, Mitch Nolte, and Hunter Biederman, have spoken out publicly against the length of time it has taken to investigate without bringing charges. One said even the most complex of cases should not take more than two or three months to go to the grand jury.

Roach’s response is to essentially a stone-wall and to criticize his criticizers.  He responded that the case against Wooten is taking so long because it is complicated but would not elaborate.   He said Wooten could have ended things if she had agreed to appear before the grand jury last week.  Wooten’s lawyer, Peter Shulte, however, said Wooten said she received only 48 hours notice after a year-long wait.  He said a sitting district judge was entitled to more notice than that.

Roach has been district attorney since 2002 and has not filed for re-election in this year’s Republican primary.  His term of office will end December 31st.

The Supreme Court of South Dakota ruled a violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a police search when they conducted a routine inventory search of an automobile lawfully impounded by police for violations of municipal parking violations.

After incurring two overtime parking citations in the same morning, a car was towed by police and impounded.   At the impound lot, a police officer observed a watch and some other personal property inside the car and ordered the car unlocked to perform an inventory of its contents.  Using a “standard” form to list the property found, a police officer performed an inventory of the contents of the car according to police procedures.  Inside the unlocked glove compartment, police found some marijuana in a plastic bag.  All property, including the marijuana, was sent to the police department for safekeeping.

Respondent Opperman was later arrested and charged with possession of marijuana.  His motion to suppress was denied, and he was convicted by a jury.    He was sentenced to 14 days in jail and a fine of $100.  That conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court of South Dakota in a ruling that found an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  That ruling was appealed to the United States Constitution and was decided in South Dakota v. Opperman.

The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized for years the distinction between the search of a building versus the search of an automobile.  According to the Court’s decision in Carroll v. United States in 1925, the “inherent mobility of automobiles creates circumstances of exigency that, as a practical necessity, rigorous enforcement of the warrant requirement is impossible.”  The Court stated the expectation of privacy was less in an automobile than in a home because its function is transportation and “seldom serves as one’s residence or as the repository of one’s personal effects…”

The Court found state courts have “overwhelmingly” concluded that, even if an inventory is characterized as a search, the intrusion is constitutionally permissible.  The Court noted that the majority of Appeals Courts have approved inventory procedures as reasonable police intrusions, citing decisions from the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth circuits.

The Court cited its prior decision in Cady v. Dumbrowski, which had approved a warrantless search of an automobile which had been towed to a private garage even though no probable cause existed to believe the vehicle contained fruits of a crime.  In Dumbrowski, “the sole justification for the warrantless incursion was that it was incident to the caretaking function of the local police to protect the community ‘s safety.”

The Court distinguished its holding in Preston v. United States in 1964, in which the Court had invalidated a car search after a vagrancy arrest, saying Preston stood for the proposition that “the search challenged there could not be justified as one incident to an arrest.”  The Court said Preston did not raise the issue of the constitutionally of a protective inventory of a car lawfully within police custody.  Preston was not, therefore, at odds with the Court’s decision in Opperman, the Court ruled.

One of the ghosts of Hurricane Katrina has surfaced – again.  A fifth former police officer has been charged in federal court for covering up the killings of unarmed civilians in the days after Hurricane Katrina.  Ignatius Hills was charged in New Orleans federal court with obstructing justice and misprison of a felony.  Hills resigned from the police force less than a week ago, obviously in anticipation of this filing.

A week after Hurricane Katrina, police were called to the Danziger Bridge on a report that shots had been filed.  Lance Madison, a 40-year-old mentally disabled man, and James Brissette, who was 17, were both shot to death by the police.  Police arrested Madison’s older brother, Ronald, on eight counts of attempted murder of a police officer.  All those charges were later dropped, obviously charges trumped-up by the police to cover their wrongdoing.

Four other former police officers and one civilian have pled guilty to covering up the shootings.  They all plead guilty to plea agreements.  Hills has been charged by Information rather than Indictment, indicating he is going to plead guilty with a plea agreement.  The reason this is indicated by the filing of an Information is that a person has a right under the fifth amendment to the constitution to be charged only by indictment by a grand jury.  The government would not bother to file the Information unless Hills’ attorney, Robert Jenkins, had agreed to plead to it.   Hills is facing a maximum sentence of eight years.

The government Information claims Hills and others shot at unarmed people and then covered up to make the shootings appear justified.  Hills allegedly wrote a police report which accused Lance Madison of eight counts of attempted murder, even though Hills had no firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing by Madison.  The Information claims another officer dictated the report to Hills, who signed it, even though Hills believed Madison was being framed.

Hills is accused of getting together with other officers to develop false stories about the incident.  Those get-togethers included one particular secret meeting in January, 2006.  The government also accuses Hills him of giving false testimony when he testified to a state grand jury in October, 2006.

A former A.T.F. agent is in jail, awaiting prosecution for a fabricated drug buy.  Brandon McFadden was an agent for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for seven years before resigning last year.  He was arrested by the F.B.I. and is now in the Tulsa County Jail awaiting prosecution in U.S. District Court there.  McFadden pled guilty soon after he was arrested to participating in a drug conspiracy.

McFadden is alleged to have coached a drug informant and fabricated a drug buy on May 8, 2007.   Not charged but implicated along with McFadden in the crime is Jeff Henderson, a Tulsa Police Officer.  Upon pleading guilty, McFadden named Henderson as a co-conspirator in the drug conspiracy, saying he and Henderson stole drugs and money and set up drug dealers to sell drugs on their behalf.

The drug buy with the coached informant led to the conviction of Larita Annette Barnes and Larry Wayne Barnes of federal drug charges.  They were both released from federal prison last July because the informant, Ryan Logsdon, said he lied about the drug buy.   Larry Barnes had served about a year on a 5 ½ year sentence.  Larita Barnes had served about a year on two concurrent 10-year sentences.

Jeff Henderson was put on paid leave from the Tulsa Police Department in April after the local newspaper published the report about the Barnes’s being released from prison.  He should be getting ready for prison because McFadden will do whatever he can to help the U.S. Attorney to convict him.

Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris has ordered a review of the cases in which Henderson had been involved, which could number more than 100.   Harris announced in court that he could not release any information because there is an ongoing grand jury investigating matters, but Harris’s office acknowledged that it was contacted by Jane W. Duke, special prosecutor assigned to investigate corruption in law enforcement in Tulsa.  She is U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

This sort of thing does not come as a surprise to criminal defense lawyers.  Some people, however, believe uncritically in “law enforcement,” they will alibi without reason for these false-swearers.   Some people will continue to believe such “law reenforcement” types are the good guys, in spite of clear evidence they are the bad guys, law-breakers, perjurors, those who bear false witness and wrongfully put people in prison.  There are those who believe that just because someone wears a uniform, that someone can do no wrong.  That is a dangerous attitude, that someone can commit no wrong.  It is not the principle that drives our American system of justice, and that is why McFadden is being prosecuted.

Veteran’s Court was created to help people.  Veterans Treatment Court in Tulsa treats veterans who would otherwise face criminal charges in a different courtroom in the Tulsa Count District Court.  It is one of four in the country   It is being considered as a model by the National Drug Court Institute.

Representatives from five states have come to observe Tulsa County Special District Court Judge Sarah Day Smith conduct proceedings.  The participants report to the judge on their progress through the five phases of the program.

Veterans of wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan appear.  They carry the psychic wounds of their service.  It usually manifests itself to the courts as drug problems, but those are only part of the problems in the lives of the veterans.  Some of them homeless, unable to hold a job, they need help instead of prosecution.  Of the homeless in Tulsa, 20% are veterans.  Many have been to drug treatment center after center.

They tell their story in open court.  Just as in drug court or in AA, they share their lives and their success in the treatment program.  The others in attendance share their feelings of accomplishment, their hopes for the future, since they will address the court in turn.  There are 48 participants now in the court, and they each have up to 12 months to complete the program.

District Judge Tom Thornbrugh and District Attorney Tim Harris have pledged their support of the program.  The District Attorney acknowledged that the veterans need to be looked at differently once they come into the criminal justice system.

Judge Day instigated the Tulsa veterans court in 2008 after she had seen one in Buffalo, New York.  She was convinced it worked.  Veterans commonly suffer from post-traumatic syndrome and traumatic brain injuries related to their military service.  No matter how desperate, they rarely ask for help.

As in drug court, familiar to criminal defense lawyers, the participants had to plead guilty to the criminal charges they were facing in order to enter into the Veterans Court process.  If they violate the terms of their probation, they face the maximum sentence of the charge to which they pled guilty.   Only two have dropped out and went to prison.  But veterans organizations and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs help out with services.   Only about 10% of the participants in the program had applied for the veterans benefits before entering Veterans Court.

Joel Stoval filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in Freemont County District Court in Canon City, Colorado.  He had pled guilty to first degree murder in 2001 shootout which left a deputy sheriff dead and another police officer paralyzed.

District Judge Julie Marshal denied the motion to withdraw the plea,  She said Stoval’s attorney’s performance “not deficient.”  The judge heard six hours of testimony from Stoval and from his attorneys at the time of the plea, assistant public defenders Patrick Murphy and Doug Wilson.

Stoval had entered a plea to first degree murder of Freemont County Deputy Sheriff Jason Schwartz and the attempted of Florence Police Corporal Toby Bethel, who is paralyzed from the shooting.  He also pled guilty to 16 other counts of attempted murder for shooting at other police officers at the shootout.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 800 years.

The shootout had arose when  Deputy Schwartz arrested Stoval and his twin brother, Michael, because Joel Stoval had shot a neighbor’s dog and a heated altercation began between the Stovals and the law enforcement officers.

At the hearing to withdraw his plea, Stoval testified he felt like he was defending himself, but his attorneys never discussed the issue of self-defense with him.  “They excluded the fact that Toby Bethel was reaching for his handgun,” Stoval testified, at which Bethel’s wife, Mary jumped up out of her seat in the courtroom and yelled, “You are such a #@& liar.”  She then left the courtroom.

Murphy testified to the contrary that Stoval had told him, “Officer Bethel did not see Joel because he was in the shadow next to the truck he had stolen.  I didn’t see any way the argument of self-defense could be made.”  Wilson testified similarly.  “I did not think we had a self-defense that we could have sold to the jury,” Wilson testified.

Joel Stoval testified the entire focus of the plea bargain was to prevent his brother from receiving the death penalty.  “I had to just take the advice of my attorneys.  I had no choice.”

Both Murphy and Wilson testified Stoval did have a concern for his brother, Michael, both attorneys nevertheless thought it was in Stoval’s best interest to accept the plea agreement to avoid the death penalty for himself, especially since they did not know if Bethel would survive.   If Bethel died, the chances of Stoval’s receiving the death penalty would increase significantly.

Assistant District Kathy Eberling asked Murphy and Wilson whether they thought their representation of Joel Stoval was deficient.  Both replied, “No.”  “We spent sufficient time to make sure he understood the charges, evidence and potential of the death penalty.  This was a case in which the facts were not greatly in dispute,” Murphy testified.

The irony is that even if Stoval had gone to trial and the District Attorney had sought the death penalty and a three-judge panel had then awarded the death penalty, it would have been overturned when the United States Supreme Court ruled three-judge panels were unconstitutional.  Stoval would therefore have ended up with a life sentence, instead of the life imprisonment plus 800 years, which he received.

As criminal defense attorneys will tell you, an attorney is expected to defend someone suspected of a crime.  That was not the case in New Mexico earlier this month.  The lawyer called the police, but she did so when a man apparently told her to do so.

Lauren Oliveros called the police in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to report a man walked into her law office and told her had killed two people the day before and wanted to turn himself in.  The man told her where the bodies could be found.

Ralph Montoya wanted to give himself up.  He was already on bail for attacking these very two victims weeks before.  Police found the bodies of Stefanie Gray and her boyfirend, Hector Torres at Torres’ home.  Ms. Gray was a high school teacher, and Torres was a professor of English at the University of New Mexico.  Gray was also a graduate student at the University of New Mexico due to defend her thesis this month.

Following the tip from Montoya, police went to Torres’ home, kicked in the back door and found their bodies in the house.  Police reported they found a handgun was in Torres’ left hand, pointing at his head.  One officer said the handgun appeared to have been placed there, but that could be one of those “police opinions” that creep into the courtroom and are claimed to rest on some sort of expertise, but which are really based on nothing more than “hunch”.  In other words, police routinely claim to know things that they really do not know.  But none of that apparently matters to solving this case.

At the time of these deaths, Montoya was on bail for attacking Ms. Gary and Mr. Torres. In that earlier incident, Montoya reportedly forced his way into the front door, chased Gray into a back bedroom, jumped on her and kicked her, all while Torres was fighting him.  Gray broke free, Montoya pulled a knife, and Torres started talking.  Torres must have been a pretty good English professor because he talked Torres into dropping the knife.

Gray then obtained from the court in Sandoval County a restraining order against Montoya, who was then released on bail on the charges of kidnapping, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault on a household member  and aggravated burglary.  It was while on bail for this incident that Montoya allegedly confessed to going to Torres’ home and killing Gray and Torres.

This was not Montoya’s first rodeo.   In 1995, Montoya pleaded guilty to charges of stalking, assault, attempted arson and attempted breaking and entering after a complaint from a student at New Mexico State University in Las Cruses.  For that, he received probation for a year.      But that was not enough, so in 1998, another woman from Las Cruses obtained a restraining order against Montoya.  She claimed that Montoya had made 15 to 20 threatening telephone calls a day for two months and that she had seen him near apartment window several times.

With a belly still not full, Montoya had an incident in 2005 with a different woman, this one from Rio Rancho.  She complained that Montoya had harassed her for a month after they had dated briefly.  She said he would show up at her home at her new boyfriend’s home, but no charges were ever filed.

Nadine Hamby, spokeswoman for the Albuquerque Police Department, summed up Montoya’s attitude pretty well.  “Obviously ‘no’ was not something he wanted to hear,” Hamby said.   As to the subjects of Montoya’s serial attention, she said: “It appears he wouldn’t leave them alone until he found someone new.”

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed U.S. District Court Judge Ronald A. White’s dismissal in September, 2007, of a pitiful lawsuit brought by former Ada District Attorney Bill Peterson against author John Gresham and others.  The lawsuit was filed in the Muskogee in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma by Richardson.  Richardson is certainly a capable lawyer, but the journalists noted that he had called a news conference when he filed the lawsuit and “could not be reached” to comment on the affirmance of the dismissal.

Former Pontotoc County District Attorney Bill Peterson filed the lawsuit over John Gresham’s book, “The Innocent Man,” which described Peterson’s conviction of two innocent men based in reliance upon the testimony of one Glen Gore and the evidence of jailhouse “snitches.”  Dennis Fritz, then a schoolteacher, and his friend, Ronald Williamson, a former minor-league baseball player, were the two convicted in Pontotoc County District Court in 1982.
Fritz received a life sentence and Williamson received the death penalty.  Both men were later exonerated by DNA tests in 1999.  Not only were the accused men proven to be innocent, but the prosecution’s star witness, Glen Gore, was proven by DNA evidence to have been the perpetrator of the murder.  He is now serving a sentence of life without parole, tried for murder after the release of Fritz and Williamson.

Gresham’s book details the faulty police and prosecution work that never investigated Glen Gore, that relied on “confessions” that resulted form questionable interrogation of the suspects as well as the reliance on jailhouse informers, known as “snitches.”   Snitches, as every criminal defense lawyer knows, are motivated by presenting as much damaging evidence as possible against whoever is being prosecuted.  Their situation requires them to help the prosecution as much as possible, and they have a motive to lie, have a motive to create false evidence.  Whether they do create false evidence in a given case is difficult for a jury to judge.  A reader of “The Innocent Man” wondered just how much instigation there was from the police and prosecution to obtain the snitch testimony, but it was clear that the prosecution never hesitated in taking it at face value to help their case.

Joining Bill Peterson as co-plaintiffs were former state criminologist Melvin Hett and former Shawnee police officer Gary Rogers.  Defendants in the case were John Gresham, well-known attorney Barr Scheck, Gresham’s publisher, Doubleday Dell Publishing Group and Robert Mayer, author of “The Dreams of Ada,” a nonfiction book about the 1984 murder in Ada, Oklahoma, and the conviction for that murder of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot.  Ward and Fontenoy, who are still in prison, were convicted by jailhouse snitch testimony, similar to that used to convict Fritz and Williamson.

This lawsuit never did not appear to have any legs when it was filed because it was based on a claim of libel brought by public officials. This is First Amendment territory, the “free speech” area that courts have repeatedly ruled should remain hands-off to the courts, and a complaint brought by public officials, who have been held to be less deserving of court protection.  The Tenth Circuit Court opinion pointed to an Oklahoma Statute that provides “criticism upon the official acts of any and all public officers” cannot be considered libelous unless a defendant makes a false allegation that official engaged in criminal behavior.

When the lawsuit was filed, Ron Fritz was quoted as saying, “ The only reason [Peterson’s] filing this is he’s trying to wipe the egg off his face because he convicted two innocent men.”  It certainly looks that way.

As the economy continues to struggle in Oklahoma, revenues to the state come in at lower levels than last year.  The state must therefore cut expenditures.   All state agencies are now planning a five percent reduction in spending.   Some projects may do worse.

One of these is the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System. It pays for the defense of those accused of crimes who cannot afford their own lawyer.  The Indigent Defense System pays for attorneys and some investigators in separate departments, broken down into cases involving charges of capital crimes and non-capital crimes, and broken down for trials and for appeals for both capital and non-capital.

The capital division, for those charged with cases facing the death penalty, is adequately funded.  Funding for non-capital crimes is less sure.

Capital crimes are probably more certainly funded because any failure in representation in these cases will likely result in a reversal on appeal and the necessity to try cases all over again.   And capital cases are already costly for the state to prosecute due to the courts’ demands for detailed and careful proceedings when such an extreme penalty is at issue.

The Indigent Defense System says it needs $1million more in funding, and the legislature is looking everywhere in its budget for the money.  One pot of money the legislature is now considering shifting the Indigent Defense System is the funding the legislature gives to Legal Aid of Oklahoma.

The state is not required to fund Legal Aid, which provides legal services of a non-criminal nature to those who truly unable to afford legal services.  Legal Aid guidelines are strict and their income level required for someone to be represented is demandingly low. But Legal Aid does have other funding sources, and the legislature is not required to fund Legal Aid.  The legislature is required to fund Indigent Defense, required by the constitution, which could ultimately be enforced by the federal courts.

As criminal defense lawyers well know, attorneys appointed by the Indigent Defense System have a heavy workload.   There are always plenty of people charged with crimes who have no money to pay a lawyer.  But now that workload is increasing.

During the 2009 budget year which ended last June 30, the staff of criminal defense attorneys who work for the indigent defense office handled 39,369 cases.  Estimates are for an increase to approximately 44,100 cases by the end of the 2010 budget year.

The legislature may not get to use the money from Legal Aid for indigent defense, however.  The legislature and the governor agreed earlier this year on the funding levels for indigent defense and Legal Aid, and the governor’s office is sticking with that agreement.  For now, that means the legislature will have to look elsewhere for its $1,000,000 funding shortfall for indigent defense for next year.

News stories report that Tiger Woods had a traffic accident backing out of his home in Florida, an estate in Isleworth, outside Orlando.   According to the Florida Highway Patrol accident report, Woods had just pulled out of his driveway when he struck a fire hydrant and then a tree, and Woods said he had cuts, bruising and “right now, I’m a little sore.”

A 911 caller reported an accident in the middle of the night.  “I have a neighbor, he hit the tree.  And we came out here just to see what was going on.  I see him and he’s laying down,” the neighbor reported without naming Tiger Woods.  When the caller was asked by the dispatcher if the “victim” was unconscious, the neighbor stated, “Yes.”  The 911 call goes on with the voice of a woman shouting, “What happened?”  “We’re just trying to get the police here right now, “ the caller says to the woman. “We don’t know what happened.  We’re figuring that out right now.  I’m on the phone with the police right now.”

The Florida Highway Patrol has been asking to interview Woods about the accident.  Woods has just published a statement on his website.  “The situation is my fault, and it’s obviously embarrassing to my family and me.  I’m human and I’m not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn’t happen.”

Woods’ statement went on: “Although I understand there is curiosity, the manly false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.  The only person responsible for the acccident is me.  My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble she was the first person to help me.  Any other assertion is absolutely false.”  This was published about an hour after Woods’ attorney told the Highway Patrol that for the third straight day Woods would be unavailable to talk to troopers.  Woods said this was a private matter, and he intended to keep it that way.

The Highway Patrol went to Woods’ estate nevertheless. They were met there by Woods’ attorney, who gave then Woods’ driver’s license, registration and insurance as required for such accidents.  The Highway Patrol still does not know where Woods was headed at that time of night, how he lost control of his SUV at such a speed that the air bags did not deploy, and why both rear windows of this Cadillac Escalade were smashed out.  Perhaps the biggest question is if was just a careless mistake, why not speak to state troopers to complete their investigation?

A spokesman for the highway patrol was towed away from the gated community in which Woods lives “for safekeeping.”  Why would the police take Woods’ vehicle from its resting place, which was apparently feet from Woods’ garage?

Besides not wanting to make public what Woods said is a “private matter,” Woods has another reason not to speak to the police about his matter.  Every criminal defense lawyer knows why Woods was well advised to have his lawyer speak for him when the police arrived at his home for a “friendly chat.”  Anything Woods says can and will be used against him in a court of law.  So why should he help the police make a criminal case against him?

Such a case does not have to appear likely.  Certainly, no criminal case appears likely from the sparse facts known.  But who knows how creative the police may become?  Such things have happened before, and that is why Woods’ attorney, informed any interview was optional, exercised the option that excluded any interview.  Why take any other option, why give up one’s Fifth Amendment Rights, just so as to appear one is “not guilty?”

Rumors are circulating that Tiger Woods is seeing some cocktail waitress in New York, and that may be related somehow to this accident.  The waitress is now represented by a Hollywood attorney.  Regardless, if a police interview took place, whatever would be said, would be front page news in 12 hours.  That is another reason Tiger Woods could understandably not want to talk to the police about this accident.  But the first reason is the reason that applies to every citizen who has available Constitutional Rights.