'Confession' admissible in child molestation case

Dec. 15—Conasauga Judicial Circuit Judge Scott Minter ruled that statements made by a defendant to officers will be admissible as evidence in a child molestation trial scheduled for early next year.

According to Whitfield County Sheriff's Office (WCSO) records, 27-year-old William Andrew Taylor has been held in pretrial detention at the local jail since Oct. 30. Whitfield Superior Court records indicate he has been charged with one count of child molestation stemming from an incident alleged to have occurred more than two years ago.

A roughly hour-and-a-half Jackson v. Denno hearing was held in Whitfield Superior Court on Friday, Dec. 8. Representing the State in the proceedings was Conasauga Judicial Circuit Assistant District Attorney Cory Rosenberger. Taylor was represented by public defender Latasha Heflin.

Current Conasauga Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office investigator Brandon Daugherty testified at the Dec. 8 hearing. In 2021, he was a detective for the sheriff's office.

A lengthy audio recording of Taylor's conversations with WCSO investigators from September 2021 was played in court.

The State indicated that the alleged victim in the case was 2 years old at the time the offenses were purportedly committed.

In the audio recording, Taylor initially denied the accusations.

"One of the things that anybody that's involved in this is going to look at is are you a pervert or did you make a poor decision?" one Whitfield County Sheriff's Office detective told the defendant. "Perverts lie because they want to cover up being a pervert, a man that made a bad decision says 'OK, this is what I did' — and believe it or not, everybody that tells the truth doesn't go to jail."

Taylor contended that "there was not touching or nothing" of the alleged victim.

"I'm giving you an opportunity now to tell me what happened so that I can go to the D.A.'s office and say 'Here's what happened, he made a mistake and he needs help,'" one investigator told the defendant. "Otherwise, I've got to assume you're a danger to the community and tell them 'No, you've done nothing but lie to me.'"

At one point, an investigator told Taylor "there were options on the table."

Another investigator told the defendant he was going to "Ben Kenemer's office right now, that's the prosecutor, and telling him you've done nothing but lie your (expletive) off."

Kenemer, now the district attorney of the Conasauga Judicial Circuit, was an assistant district attorney in the circuit in 2021.

Kenemer was present in the courtroom for the Dec. 8 proceedings. He did not testify.

"Your heart is wanting to talk and your brain is saying shut the (expletive) up," an officer told Taylor in the audio recording. "Tell us the truth, we'll leave and you won't go to jail today."

After that, the defendant told detectives that he did touch the alleged victim in the case.

He also said that he looked at child pornography "one time and that was it."

Rosenberger asked Daugherty what he meant when, in the audio recording, he said that he was going to talk to Kenemer.

"That we would relay the information we gathered in the interview to him," Daugherty replied.

Rosenberger also asked Daugherty about his comments regarding the defendant not going to jail if he told the truth.

On the witness stand, he indicated that he made no promises pertaining to charging decisions to the defendant.

"Mr. Taylor continued to maintain he did not touch the alleged victim," Heflin said on cross-examination. "And you guys continued to ask him questions and informed him of what the allegation was."

She circled back to comments Daugherty made in the interview, in which he said the defendant was at the "crossroads" of "receiving therapy" or being "a danger to the community."

On the stand, Daugherty noted that — at that point in the audio recording — he had yet to tell the defendant what the actual charge was in the case.

Heflin pointed out comments Daugherty made in the audio recording, specifically the utterance "When we leave, the deal is off the table."

She asked Daughterty if that deal explicitly meant no jail time and therapy.

"Those were the statements that I made, yes ma'am," he responded.

Later, Daugherty told Heflin "There was not really a deal on the table that we could really make a decision on at that point in time, I think it was more of an interview technique."

She noted that the defendant did not confess to the allegations until after detectives told Taylor that they were going to have conversations with Kenemer about the case.

"You never told Mr. Taylor that you had no influence over decisions that Mr. Kenemer was going to book?" Heflin continued. "At that point in time, you never told Mr. Taylor that you have no influence over decisions regarding punishment?"

In response, Daugherty said he had "very little influence over the decision even to arrest" the defendant at that time.

"I did offer, or I did mention, that therapy may be an option," he said in court. "I don't remember ever saying he would never go to jail."

Citing Georgia Code, Heflin contended that Taylor's comments to police were induced "by the slightest hope of benefit" — and as a result, could not be considered "voluntary" remarks and the basis of a conviction.

"Specifically, Daugherty made comments to our client about not going to jail," she told the court. "Specifically, the deal on the table, options, came 30 seconds prior to Mr. Taylor's confession."

Heflin said Miranda rights issues were not applicable, as Taylor was told upfront that he was not under arrest by detectives.

"The only issue we are here to determine is whether or not the statement was freely and voluntarily given," Minter said.

Heflin argued that the officers gave certain "promises" to Taylor.

"Not going to jail is an option that Mr. Daugherty stated that Mr. Taylor had while on the stand," she said. "Mr. Daugherty also stated that Mr. Taylor had an option of receiving therapy and he also said that he had an influence over what decisions and how this arrangement would go."

By giving the defendant "options," Heflin contended such was tantamount to a "deal" with Taylor.

"Mr. Taylor's standpoint is if I don't tell you the truth now, when you leave here the deal of no jail time — possibly no jail time — no therapy, is off the table," she said. "When you look at the totality of the circumstances, I do not believe the State has proven its burden."

In response, Rosenberger said the audio played in court spoke for itself.

"The State is saying that that deal was to go tell Mr. Kenemer that the defendant was an honest man," he told Judge Minter. "And I believe that is in the video, I don't have a time stamp or anything ... I believe that Detective Daugherty says at some point during his interview, 'When we go talk to Mr. Kenemer we'll be able to tell him that you were honest with us or something like that,' he didn't make any promise or say 'We'll go to Mr. Kenemer and make sure you get less jail time' or anything like that."

Rather, Rosenberger argued that the detectives' comments were "collateral statements" that did not constitute offers of reduced penalties to Taylor.

"Given the totality of the circumstances we would ask the court to find those statements are admissible under Jackson v. Denno and were not made with any sort of hope of benefit," he said.

Minter ultimately sided with the State, ruling that the prosecution met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence.

"The defendant made his statements to law enforcement without any hope of benefit or fear of injury," he said. "Specifically, the court finds that promises that the detectives made to the defendant that he would not go to jail that day were a collateral benefit and do not relate to the charges or the sentence that the defendant would face and thus would not be something that would have induced him to give his statement."

He agreed with the State, indicating that he believes the "off the table" remarks from law enforcement did not indicate a specific promise but instead the notion "that they would go tell Mr. Kenemer that the defendant was an honest man and were not referring to any plea deal or reduced charges or a reduced sentence."

Heflin noted that Taylor's bond was revoked in October by Minter. She asked Minter to consider reinstating the defendant's bond in the wake of the Jackson v. Denno hearing ruling.

"As of today, I have spoken to all witnesses, I have conducted a psychological evaluation, I have gotten all of the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) forms signed," she told the court. "Mr. Taylor's father has just been diagnosed with cancer ... I do understand why your honor made the decision he made to revoke Mr. Taylor's bond."

She noted that Taylor was scheduled for a calendar call on Jan. 22, with a potential jury trial start date as early as the week of Jan. 29.

Minter declined Heflin's request, noting that the case had already gotten as far along as juror selection.

"The defense had to make a motion to continue that day after the ready announcement because Mr. Taylor was not making himself available to you to prepare for trial," he said. "He's competent, ready to go forward — the court is going to deny your motion to release him on bond because this is on the trial calendar for Jan. 22 and I expect this will be one of the cases we try."