Attorney: Police refused access to ambush suspect |

Attorney: Police refused access to ambush suspect

The Associated Press

Police refused to tell the ambush suspect who eluded capture in the Pennsylvania woods for 48 days that his family hired him an attorney the night he was captured, the lawyer said Monday.

James Swetz, a veteran criminal defense attorney from Eastern Pennsylvania, said he called ahead, then showed up at the state police barracks in Blooming Grove about 9:30 p.m. Oct. 30, about 3 12 hours after Eric Frein’s arrest. He said he was prevented from seeing his client.

“I was told, ‘He’s an adult and has not asked for a lawyer,’ ” Swetz recounted.

Authorities have not revealed what Frein, who is charged with killing one state trooper and seriously injuring another, told them in an interview at the barracks. His public defenders could try to get statements Frein made to police ruled inadmissible at trial, though U.S. and Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions could make that difficult.

“The police have no affirmative duty under the Fifth Amendment to notify a person being interviewed that an attorney is seeking to speak with them,” Pike County District Attorney Ray Tonkin, who is seeking the death penalty against Frein, said via email Monday.

State police announced the barracks where the shootings occurred Sept. 12 will reopen to the public on Wednesday.

Swetz, whose involvement in the case was limited to making sure Frein was represented early after his arrest, said in an email the state “created an unnecessary issue” by having barred access to the suspect.

Frein is charged with opening fire outside the Blooming Grove barracks, killing Cpl. Bryon Dickson and seriously wounding Trooper Alex Douglass. He led police on a tense manhunt through the northeastern Pennsylvania woods before U.S. marshals captured him outside an abandoned airplane hangar about 30 miles from the shooting scene.

Swetz said he tried to see Frein at the barracks later that evening.

“I called and invoked his right to counsel and was told I would not be given access to Eric, and Eric would not be told counsel was retained and available to him,” Swetz said.

Swetz spent about two hours at the barracks, then left.

He wound up meeting with Frein at the Pike County prison the following day, long after Frein had talked to the police. Frein then signed paperwork indicating he did not want to be questioned without his lawyers, Swetz said.

The Pike County public defender’s office, which took over Frein’s defense, declined comment Monday on any aspect of the case, including whether it would challenge the admissibility of Frein’s statements to police.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the police in a 1986 case in which investigators failed to tell a murder suspect who had waived his constitutional right to remain silent that his sister had contacted a public defender to represent him. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled similarly in a 1999 case.

“Some states have said that this is a problematic thing, but Pennsylvania is not one of those states,” Duquesne University law professor Wes Oliver said.

State courts in Pennsylvania have not entirely closed the door to such a challenge, “assuming the facts supported it,” said David Sonenshein, a Temple University law professor. “And that’s the most we can say now, because we don’t know exactly what happened in this case.”

Even if Frein’s statements to police are challenged, authorities have said they gathered plenty of physical evidence tying him to the crime, including spent shell casings in his vehicle that matched those found at the crime scene.

Frein is being held without bail. He has not yet entered a plea.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.