Arizona vs. Fulminante

Arizona vs. Fulminante 1991

$1.25

Friday, May 2, 2014

Vol XCIII, No. 311

Terms & Facts

What is the case: Arizona vs. Fulminante?

• prejudicial: harmful to someone or something; detrimental
• certiorari: a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court
• harmless error: a ruling by a judge that does not meet the burden for a losing party to warrant for a new trial

• The trial court denied Fulminante's motion to supress the confession on the grounds that it was coerced and admittance violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
• The court issued a new trial order reasoning that a harmless error analysis was inappropriate in the case of involuntary confessions
• Fulminante's statements to the police were inconsistent and unreliable
• Jeneane had confided in multiple people that "he's going to kill me" and she was "afraid he's going to kill me" before her murder
• The 11-year-old also stated she had overheard her parents talking, noting her father mentioned he "had to get rid of her permanently"

Who? What? When? Where?

When?

• September 14, 1982

What went down:

Who?

• Oreste Fulminante
• Jeneane Michelle Hunt
• Anthony Sarivola
• Donna Sarivola
• Arizona Supreme Court
• Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution

Oreste Fulminante was found guilty of first degree, premeditated murder. But due to errors found in the trial, Fulminante's death sentence and murder conviction were reversed after he demanded an appeal. The admission of the confession was designated prejudicial ( harmful to someone or something), somewhat because without the admission of the confession it was recognized by both the trial court and the State that without the confession it was unlikely a successful prosecution would've been the outcome mainly because of lack of physical and circumstantial evidence.

What?

• Murder of 11-year-old Jeneane Michelle Hunt
• Retrial / appeal

Where?

• Arizona - the murder
• New Jersey - Fulminante convicted of an unrelated felony
• New York - incarceration of Fulminante for possession of a firearm

At what point is a coerced confession considered liable enough to prove what really MIGHT'VE happened?

The Second Trial

The First Trial

Fulminante II

Fulminante I

Who was involved in the decision of the second case?

In the early morning of September 14, 1982, the Mesa, Arizona Police Department received a call from Oreste Fulminante, reporting that his 11-year-old daughter, Jeneane Michelle Hunt, had gone missing. Two days later, Jeneane's body was found in a desert outside of Mesa. In conclusion to the autopsy, she was found to have been shot twice in the head with either a .38 or .357 caliber handgun and her neck was stained by a ligature mark that had been left by a cloth that was found wrapped around her neck at the time of death. It was unable to be established whether she had been sexually assaulted or not.

Although Fulminante was given a retrial, he was still for second time convicted of murdering his daughter and was sentenced to death, even though the state's prosecutor made it clear that without the confession the defendant would have never been charged.

Fulminante appealed, arguing that his confession was a result of coercion the admittance of the two confessions to the trial violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments under the United States Constitution. After careful consideration, it was found by the Supreme Court that Fulminante's confession was in fact coerced and that the admission of the confession to his trial was a product of harmless error. In result, the court reversed Fulminante's conviction and ordered for a retrial without the use of the confession.

The Arizona State Court requested for a certiorari, which the Supreme Court in turn gifted. Arizona court applied the "but for" test, which proved that "but for" Sarivola's promise of protection given to Fulminante, the confession would not have been confided.

Sarivola was released in November, 1983. Six months later Fulminante was also released. Though, he was unwittingly charged again for another weapons violation. He was later indicted in Arizona on September 4, 1984 for the murder of his daughter. Prior to trial, Fulminante requested the court suppress the first confession he'd given to Sarivola, and the second he'd later given to Sarivola's wife after his 1984 release in the car of Sarivola's wife, in which they'd picked Fulminante up in.

The court found the confessions admissable on the main note that they were supposed voluntary confessions, and on December 19 of 1985 Fulminante was convicted of Jeneane Michelle Hunt's murder and was subsequently sentenced to death.

Even though he was a suspect in the murder, Fulminante was never formally charged and so he next turned up in New Jersey, after being convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon. He was incarcerated in New York in the Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution. While incarcerated in New York, Fulminante became quite acquainted with a fellow inmate, Anthony Sarivola (a paid FBI informant). Sarivola had heard the rumors that Fulminante killed a child and knew Fulminante was "starting to get some rough treatment and whatnot" from other inmates because the rumors. Sarivola took this to his advantage, knowing his FBI correspondents wanted more information, and offered Fulminante protection, adding though, "You have to tell me about it, you know. I mean in other words, 'For me to give you any help.'" In return, Fulminante confided in Sarivola that he had driven Jeneane out to the desert on his bike, choked and sexually assaulted her, and then shot her twice in the head.

Prosecution

• Janet Napolitano - Arizona Attorney General
• Paul McMurdie
• Gregory McCarthy

Defense

• Brockelman & Brodman, P.L.C.
• James Belanger

Justices

• Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket
• Vice Chief Justice Charles Jones
• Justice Frederick Martone
• Justice Ruth McGregor
• Justice Stanley Feldman

Q 4: The Fulminante case deemed the admission of a coerced confession inadmissable to the case but the 1967 case ruled that a coerced confession could never be considered "harmless error" and could be grounds for overturning a conviction.