Hispanic admitted to raping and killing a girl, but won an appeal to overturn his confession: outrage in New Jersey

Appellate judges have ruled that Andreas Erazo was not properly advised of his rights before he confessed to killing 11-year-old neighbor Abbiegail Smith. https://t.co/Oc4SZCTWd3

—Asbury Park Press (@AsburyParkPress) March 26,

Detectives found Smith’s body on a shed roof outside Erazo’s apartment window hours after she disappeared. It was wrapped in a futon cover and tied with computer cables.

Erazo, who then had 18 years, confessed to stabbing Smith, a resident of an apartment on the floor below his own. He initially told detectives that the murder was accidental, though he later admitted in court that the murder was intentional.

Before pleading guilty in 2019, Erazo tried to have the confession dismissed. The court denied his motion and Erazo pleaded guilty.

But in his quest for a confession, detectives told Erazo that any statement he made would help him. They also assured him that the recordings of the interrogation could only be for his benefit. Now the appeals court found that this promise undermined the earlier warning of “Miranda rights.”

The decision gives Erazo the ability to withdraw his guilty plea. His confession would not be admissible in court for a new trial or guilty plea, explained NJ.101.5

When detectives read her Miranda warning, they “undermined” the process by misleading Erazo, who had a history of mental health, substance abuse and family problems, on the seriousness of the crime, according to the appeals court ruling.

The Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office said Tuesday that they plan to appeal the decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court. “We believe this decision does not align with the Miranda requirements,” a spokesperson for the prosecutor’s office said in a statement, quoted by NJ.com.

The “Miranda Rule” indicates that when someone is arrested in the US, police officers must warn them that they have the right to remain silent, that anything you say can be used against you in a court of law, that you have the right to contact an attorney and if you cannot afford one one will be provided to you before any questioning, if you so desire. Failure to issue the Miranda warning renders the evidence thus obtained inadmissible in court.

2022