Archives: Story

Judge Pope Rejects Defense Attorney’s Motions In Fire Case

Circuit Judge Sam Pope, in a written opinion filed Thursday, July 31, denied two motions filed in June by Robert Bridewell, the attorney representing Joel David "Luke" Holland. Holland, 19, is charged with arson, causing a catastrophe, and unlawful burning in connection with the January 8, 2006, fire that burned 3,964 acres in the area from the Berlin Road northerly to across Highway 8. The fire also consumed one residence.

Bridewell based the motions to dismiss and suppress a December 20, 2006, confession on Rule 8-1.

During a hearing in Ashley County Circuit Court on June 23, Bridewell argued that in accordance with Rule 8-1, charges should be dismissed due to an unnecessary delay in a prompt first appearance.

Holland was arrested following a traffic stop in Biscoe on Saturday, December 17, 2006, and transported to Ashley County for an outstanding warrant. Holland arrived in Ashley County in the early morning hours the next day. Although he did not receive a first judicial appearance until Tuesday, December 20, Pope ruled that a dismissal of charges is not a remedy to a Rule 8-1 violation and denied the motion to dismiss.

In the motion to suppress statements made by the defendant on Monday, December 19, 2006, to Ashley County deputies, Bridewell again based his argument on violations to Rule 8-1. Bridewell stated that the defendant's below average IQ and threats made by deputies during the interview could be viewed to support that the defendant's statements were not voluntary and that he was pressured during the interrogation into admitting to the crime.

Additionally, Holland testified during June's hearing on the motions that deputies denied repeated requests to contact his mother.

He further testified that he was not read his rights prior to two and a half hour interrogation, but instead told by Deputy Daniel Watson to sign yes and his name, which he did.

Judge Pope ruled that Watson's testimony was that Watson had read each right to the defendant and asked Holland if he understood each right or had any questions. Pope further states in the opinion that Watson testified that he read Holland his rights prior to interviewing him. The judge also noted that Holland later testified that he was not presented with a written copy of his rights until midway through the interview, but that he could have read then if he had been given sufficient time.

"The court finds that Watson's testimony is credible and defendant's is incredible," Pope stated in his opinion. Pope noted that he based his decision on the defendant admitting to lying to his parents in the past to get out of trouble.

The judge also noted that from "the totality of the circumstances" that Holland's statement was voluntary and that his rights waiver was also voluntary.

In regard to Holland's IQ, Pope noted that while Holland dropped out of school in the fifth grade and had an IQ of 80, that at the time of his arrest he had lived on his own for some time and supported himself by working as a commercial fisherman. After reviewing two taped interviews, Pope ruled that Holland responded to Watson's questions in an appropriate manner and that they were non-threatening in nature.

The opinion also noted that Holland had attempted to call his mother, but that she did answer the calls.

Although Pope noted that Holland should have received a first appearance Monday afternoon, it did not show that the rule was violated in the case at the time the defendant gave his two statements. "It is ordered that the motion to suppress is denied," Pope ruled. The judge's opinion will open the way for the case to proceed to trial in the circuit court.

The circuit judge had previously rejected a defense motion to move the case to juvenile court. The defense appealed that decision, but on April 16, the Arkansas Court of Appeals rejected the appeal, ruling that the case should proceed in the circuit courts.