A Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) detective, who interviewed a homicide defendant testified before DC Superior Court Judge Michael Ryan in a hearing on June 12.
William Ransford, 59, is charged with first-degree and second-degree murder for his alleged involvement in the fatal strangulation of Debra McManus, 39, at the 400 block of Trenton Street, SE on Oct. 23, 1993.
According to court documents, Ransford was charged with the decades old murder after his DNA was allegedly discovered on the victim’s sock.
The detective not only interviewed the defendant but also had obtained a mouth swab that would later be used to link the defendant’s DNA with the victim’s.
The detective located Ransford at a hospital and although he had already obtained a warrant for Ransford’s DNA swab, he wanted to get consent.
The prosecution asked about procedures the detectives used when interviewing the defendant. He stressed the defendant was not under arrest and that it was just an interview to get more information. Ransford was not Mirandized prior to the interview, however the defendant was made aware that he did not have to consent to the swab.
The detective said asked the defendant whether he had known McManus and that his DNA had probably been found on vaginal and rectal swabs taken from the victim. At the time of the interview, that had not been verified.
Defense attorney Molly Bunke asked the detective if he asked why Ransford was in the hospital and whether he had undergone anesthesia or other medical procedures. The defense played a recording of the interview during which the defendant’s slurred and slow speech suggested he not been fully aware during the interview.
Bunke also said Ransford wasn’t told he did not have to talk to the detectives and that he was free to leave although he was not under arrest The witness asserted that he had just been there to interview him and get information even though he had a warrant.
“If he had said no, we would have executed the warrant,” the detective said when asked about what he would have done if Ransford were to say no to the swab..
Judge Ryan said the prosecution had to show that Ransford’s Miranda rights did not have to be read during the interview and whether the swab was voluntary.
The prosecution argued that the interview did not occur under duress and no reasonable person would believe that he was under arrest in this circumstance–thus reading Miranda rights was not required.
In addition, the prosecution said over the course of the interview, Ransford became more coherent, giving precise answers, which proved he knew what he was saying and doing when he consented to the buccal swab. However, since the detective also had a warrant for the swab so getting material was legal, voluntary or not.
Bunke argued that the test for custody isn’t just arrest and that other circumstances must be considered. They argued that the defendant had not been asked to give the interview and he had just been brought to the room, which could have indicated that he was not free to leave. Bunke referred to past cases in which the court ruled confinement even when the suspect was interviewed in his apartment and was told he wasn’t under arrest.
Bunke suggested that not bringing up the warrant and trying to get Ransford to consent to the swab was subtle coercion and a tactic to put him at ease while eliciting a confession. As a resulted the defense wanted to suppress statements made by Ransford during the interview as well as the DNA evidence from the swab.
The prosecution concluded that as long as there was a warrant the evidence should not be suppressed and that any actions the detectives may have taken, such as trying to put Ransford at ease were not improper tactics.
Judge Ryan stated he is leaning towards the defense but is still unsure about the DNA from the swab and whether it was voluntary or not.
Parties are expected to reconvene June 16.
