Interrogation Tactics Faulted In Pr. George's

After the false murder confessions were documented, Prince George's police in 2003 began videotaping statements in homicides and other major cases.

State's attorney's officials have said the videotaping has helped refute some allegations of police misconduct.

But the videotaping also has verified overly aggressive interrogation procedures by detectives. In 2003, a Circuit Court judge threw out the videotaped statement of murder suspect Richard B. Gater because a detective threatened to have a police raid conducted on the home of the suspect's ailing mother.

The same judge threw out a videotaped statement by Gater's co-defendant because two other detectives continued to question the alleged accomplice after he had checked "no" on a form asking whether he agreed to waive his right to remain silent.

In a third 2003 case, a Circuit Court judge suppressed a videotaped statement by a carjacking suspect because a county police detective ignored the suspect's request for an attorney.

And in June 2003, the Maryland Court of Appeals threw out guilty verdicts in three Prince George's trials -- a murder case and two armed robberies -- because county police detectives violated rules against prolonged interrogations of suspects.

Nelson isn't the only homicide detective to have a videotaped statement thrown out in recent weeks.

On Aug. 2, Circuit Court Judge C. Philip Nichols Jr. did not allow a videotaped statement obtained by homicide Detective Gregory McDonald to be used.

About 11:45 a.m. Feb. 17, McDonald began interviewing Robert Lee Humphries III. Less than two hours earlier, Humphries, then 34, had forced his way into his wife's apartment in Glenarden and fatally stabbed her despite an attempt by a private security guard for the apartment complex to protect her, according to a police charging document.

Nichols suppressed the defendant's statement because Humphries told McDonald at the beginning of the interview that he had consumed 10 beers about an hour before the attack. A blood sample taken from Humphries that day showed no alcohol in his system. McDonald testified that Humphries did not appear to be under the influence.

Humphries's attorney, Assistant Public Defender Denton Lynch, argued that because of the 10 beers, his client was incapable of knowingly and willingly waiving his Miranda rights to remain silent and ask for an attorney.

"It would appear that, at least to me, there's evidence from a witness for the defendant that he had been drinking, there is a notation to the waiver [of rights] form that he had in fact been drinking, and I'm just not prepared to say that beyond a reasonable doubt his statement, what little there is, was given voluntarily," Nichols said, explaining why he suppressed the statement.

Humphries is scheduled to go on trial today.