Court case threatens Tampa murder prosecution

TAMPA - A Tampa case that's gone all the way to the Unites States Supreme court could affect every law enforcement agency in this country.

It's a double murder case that involves the now-famous Miranda warning, where police are required to tell someone under arrest what rights they have.

At issue are the exact words used in the case from Tampa.

Steven Lorenzo never answered police questions, and now he's serving 200 years in federal prison for drugging Bay Area men for sex and torture.

Co-defendant Scott Schweickert did cooperate. He's doing 40 years, but so far, Schweickert's chilling, detailed descriptions of how he and Lorenzo killed Jason Galehouse and Michael Wachholtz have not been enough for state prosecutors to file murder charges.

"I want them to be charged for murder and I want them to be convicted of murder," Ruth Wachholz said.

Now, for the men's families, it comes down to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue, did police give Schweickert, and hundreds of other suspects, faulty Miranda warnings?

We've all heard the warnings on TV, if not first hand from a police officer, "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you."

Next, officers are supposed to tell suspects they can have a lawyer, but there's doubt the rights were made clear to Schweickert, based on an unrelated case that's gone all the way to the to the nation's highest court.

"Should the police tell them 'you have a right to a lawyer now, not just for trial, but while we are questioning you?'" explained former prosecutor Steve Crawford.

Kevin Powell's is the test case. Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection.

Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."

The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn't adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.

Joseph W. Jacquot, Florida deputy attorney general, argued that the warning given Powell "expresses all the rights required under Miranda."

Justice Stephen Breyer clearly disagreed.

"Aren't you supposed to tell this person, that unlike a grand jury, you have a right to have the lawyer with you during interrogation?" Breyer said. "I mean, it isn't as if that was said in passing in Miranda. They wrote eight paragraphs about it. And I just wonder, where does it say in this warning, you have the right to have the lawyer with you during the interrogation?"

Different courts have came down on different sides on what exactly should be said, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

"We've got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn't that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can't reasonably convey, if there's this many courts holding that it doesn't?" Sotomayor said.

Powell's lawyer, Deborah K. Brueckheimer, said that the warning Powell was given from Tampa, Fla., police gave him the impression that "once questioning starts, that he has no right to consult with a lawyer anymore, and it certainly doesn't tell him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney with him in an interrogation room, where the coercion takes on a highly new meaning."

Justice Scalia called Brueckheimer's argument "angels dancing on the head of a pin."

"You are saying, 'Oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed,"' Scalia said. "I mean, doesn't that seem to you quite fantastic?"

Some now expect the highest court may overrule Florida's own Supreme Court.

"A conservative court will lean more to law enforcement, and in this particular case, law enforcement very strongly wants this language," said former federal prosecutor John Fitzgibbons.

A ruling is not expected from the court until spring or summer.