Raymond Clark III Arrested, But Many Questions Remain

With the arrest of Raymond Clark on charges of murdering Annie Le, the New Haven police now seem to be acknowledging that he was more than a mere "person of interest" when they handcuffed him and took him into custody two days earlier. He was surely a suspect then, despite the police disclaimers. The only definite way of knowing what his status was at the time of his initial detention is to see the search warrants signed by the judge and the affidavit submitted in support of that search warrant. If the affidavit alleged, and the warrant found, "probable cause," then his initial detention was probably valid. If, however, the judge authorized his arrest in handcuffs based on him merely being a "person of interest," then serious constitutional problems arise. But, according to the Yale Daily News, the authorities have refused to disclose any of these documents, even the name of the judge who signed the warrant.

It would be a sad day in America if anyone deemed by the police to be a "person of interest" -- which could include anyone who worked with, knew, or came in contact with the victim -- could be handcuffed, placed in a police car and hauled down to the police station, even if only for a few hours. This is precisely the sort of conduct that we, as a nation, condemn when carried out in other parts of the world. Our Constitution demands that a seizure -- roughly the equivalent of an arrest -- not be unreasonable. In general that means that the police must demonstrate to a judge that they have probable cause for believing that the person may be guilty of a crime.

The evidence of Clark's complicity in Le's death now seems substantial, if there was in fact a DNA match and if his card swipe and e-mails confirm his contact with her just prior to her disappearance. But the evidence that he murdered her in premeditated fashion seems sparse. Indeed, the manner by which her body was hidden appears to be inconsistent with long term planning. As a matter of law, however, premeditation can occur over a very short period of time. Moreover, if we ultimately learn that Le was sexually assaulted by Clark -- and I've heard nothing to suggest this -- her death would be classified as felony murder under the law of most states.

There is much yet to be learned about this horrible crime, most particularly with regard to the motive of the killer. At trial, if there is a trial rather than a plea, Clark will benefit from a presumption of innocence, not only with regard to whether he committed the crime, but also with regard to whether the crime was murder, manslaughter or something else.

Stay tuned.

 

 

Comments

[jsf-atl]

I wonder why Yale president so quickly dismiss this case as work place violence, as if he already knows everything. To me this is a hate crime over infatuation. Yale president should not cover up the nepotism going on in this university. Nepotism is a cousin of payroll padding.

[MotherMiasia]

(yawn)

At least he's not demonizing Palestinians and arguing how life is better for them under occupation.

[Adartist777]

Mr. Dershowitz appears to be ignorant of the fact that we are now living in a police state. There are sections of America (particularly the South) where there are no rights against search and seizure.

Just the weekend before last, some friends of mine (in NC) went out for dinner and karaoke at a local bar on a Saturday night. One of them was the designated driver who had one beer and two sodas in four hours.

On their way home around midnight, they were followed by a police cruiser and stopped. There was no hint of drunken driving as the police officer did not charge the driver with DWI or any traffic violations. My friends were all searched. When no contraband or open containers were found, the officer then brought in a drug sniffing dog. Again, no contraband was found. Then the officer gave the designated driver a breathalyzer test. When the first one showed virtually no alcohol in his system, the frustrated officer repeated the procedure while four police units surrounded the scene. They were all let go without charges, but all were humiliated and angered that this police officer was allowed to go on a witch hunt without probable cause.

Sounds like Nazi Germany? No, it was a small town in the mountains of NC with the Gestapo hanging out around bar parking lots in an attempt to shake down innocent drivers for their potential revenue that any driver error might bring.

[mansterEZ]

This kind of [sic] law enforcement activity is going on all over the country. The PATRIOT ACT gives the police this kind of seemingly unlimited power. Our [sic] rights are slowly being stripped away while we all look on in amazement. The ultimate slippery slope is now in full effect. Unless we all step up as one and elect lawmakers that uphold the constitution, then we all will lose more than just freedom.

[Fernando]

My problem with this extends to the media as well. More than one person has been handcuffed and paraded (deliberately or not) in front of TV cameras to then be released and not be seen again in a courtroom. There is something fundamentally wrong about that; even if no charges are brought up, that person becomes "that guy they questioned". Not an enviable reputation to have when applying for a job or a loan, taking their kids to school or even dating.

[jackbutler5555]

Anybody here remember the late Richard Jewell? The police let it be known he was the buy involved in the Olympic bombing in Atlanta.

He didn't do it.

For folks who will only believe it if they see it on FoxNews, here's the backgroun form Fox:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295071,00.html

Is it too much to require the police to shut up until they are ready to arrest? And, for that matter, can prosecutors and the police be required to save presenting their evidence until the trial?

[jackbutler5555]

I hope those here who are quite comfortable with the handling of a person of interest become a person of interest sometime.

[mansterEZ]

Alan Dershowitz is the status quo!! He was a great supporter of the PATRIOT ACT when it passed with 80% approval of Congress and the evil Bushies in 2002. Why should I or any reasonable citizen accept his rhetoric now? The PATRIOT ACT allows law enforcement to detain any 'person of interest' without charges indefinitely until evidence of facts can be used against the aforementioned 'person of interest.' This guy may very well be guilty, but that is mostly determined before formal charges or trial. He claims to support an individuals' right guaranteed under the 4th and 8th amendments, but those [sic] rights were redefined under the PATRIOT ACT and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld its' constitutionality.

[MrSparrow]

"... Dershowitz. . . was a great supporter of the PATRIOT ACT when it passed with 80% approval of Congress and the evil Bushies in 2002." Good point manster, but remember also that your current president voted to approve the passage of the second, even more insidious Patriot Act. The assault on civil rights which is taking place in the US (as well as in all nations globally) is not coming from any one direction. I implore you to consider this the next time you hear of Democrats wanting to pass "hate crime" legislation or curtail your right to bear arms.
Government derives all of it's power from us. The moment the people of this country realize that the struggle is not occurring from right to left but rather from top to bottom is the moment true change will be realized.

[mansterEZ]

Mr. Sparrow,

I am not a democrat and certainly not a republicrat and abhore machine politics. I am independent and responsibly progressive who did not vote for Obama, not because of his skin, insomuchas his beholdedness to the status quo of machine politics. I hoped he would stay true to his word and turn the tables, but sadly he chose to capitulate to the greed mongers in support of trickle-down economics. The last time I checked anything of substance is always built from the ground up. My president, no, but certainly better than Bush and his war mongers.

[wyldthings]

I'm sorry Professor, You would argue that a man out arrested for spousal abuse should be set free without bail and then be his defense attorney when he's charged with his wife's murder. They did this to let the suspect know they were on him like White On Rice.

[Steamboater]

To accuse the police or the judge of jumping to conclusions in this case is pretty deceitful because Dershowitz is the one who's concluded that the police and judge concluded that it was a premeditated act of murder. In fact, the police have consistently called this work-related violence, which makes it sound as if someone supervisor got punched out over an argument about an emplyee coming in late too often. If anything, the murder was a matter of some custodian (not a student) who's job it was to clean the cages of mice the victim worked on E-mailing her (when he had no business E-mailing her about the conditions of cages, it was his responsibility to take care of them) just to get her attention because he was obsessed with her. Who knows? Le handled it well though but after a while on that final day of her life, who knows? Maybe she finally decided not to be so nice any more and told him to F off and he got enraged and killed her.

[ramblin jack]

The fact that so many are bantering about Clark as if he is already gulity is a troulbing thing

[Mollabaji]

I never read this guy's input and wonder just why do people even bother reading it? Ignore him and hope he gets lost in space soon.

[ramblin jack]

Why? He makes a solid point in this article.

[delightman88]

Raymond Clark III appeared at a preliminary hearing yesterday and was charged with murder. Bond was set at $3 million. You don't need probable cause to arrest someone. A good case of circumstantial evidence will do. It is up to the District Attorney and not the police anyway. I believe they are wrong to withhold documentation regarding the case, if they're nothing more than affidavits and a search warrant. They should be made available under the FOIA. They are not evidence or privileged and cannot be hidden from the public legally.

[jackbutler5555]

If you don't need probable cause to arrest someone, what do you need?

[Adartist777]

Maybe a good guess? That's the way our police seem to work.

[delightman88]

I think it's a confusion of terms. Probable cause is needed for searches and seizures, and for warrants. Evidentiary cause is needed for arrests. Such things as witnesses, weapons, or illegal substances that tie a person to a crime are cause for arrest. Probable cause is used to gather evidence and make an arrest.

[jqcitizen]

Dershowitz has a reputation of defending people, on constitutional grounds, and has been successful in high profile cases. It is possible that a jury might have declared 'Not guilty', at times. perhaps erroneously. But, that is the justice system in this country.

One point I didn't understand, in this case, was the apparent indignation on the part of Dershowitz, that a person-of-interest should be hand cuffed.

Routine traffic stops for a tail light being out, often result in the driver being 'cuffed'. I can't say if this is right or wrong, but it is certainly embarrassing to that person.

[aspiecelia]

Most police departments also have a policy that anyone they transport in their cars are handcuffed, even just for questioning.

[Marred80]

There was a stage play that involved a murder at Yale University called "The Yale Diaries." A student is murdered and there is a huge coverup. Maybe Raymond Clark III saw it, and if the police could prove that he did, it would probably be the smoking gun. Perhaps a ticket to the theater?

[CosmicChaos]

I have been upset about how the media is convicting people even before a person becomes an official suspect.

I do not think that a "Person of Interests" face should be shown on the media.