Did West Des Moines police deceive a professor suspected of killing her husband? Iowa Supreme Court to decide
Iowa Supreme Court justices struggled Wednesday with the issue of whether statements a former Simpson College professor gave police before she was charged with murdering her husband could be used as evidence in her trial.
Police charged Gowun Park, 43, with first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping after her husband, Sung Woo Nam, died in their West Des Moines condominium on Feb. 15, 2020. They said he had been tied to a chair, with his hands and feet bound and a towel taped over his head. The cord used to tie him to the chair was around his neck, and the cause of his death was listed as strangulation, according to court documents.
At issue in Wednesday's hearing was whether detectives improperly promised leniency to Park during an interview Feb. 15 and early Feb. 16, 2020, at the West Des Moines police station, or whether they were merely deceptive within the bounds of the law. The Supreme Court's decision on allowing the evidence could have a huge impact when her case reaches trial.
Dallas County Judge Brad McCall ruled on May 4, 2021, that because of the deception and other issues, all five interviews between Park and detectives had to be excluded. In May, the Iowa Court of Appeals ruled that statements from the first interview between Park and two West Des Moines police officers at her condominium could be admitted at trial, but that the other interviews should be excluded.
Park, an immigrant from South Korea who was released from jail when her bond was reduced because of the COVID-19 pandemic, pleaded not guilty in March 2020.
She had told detectives her husband was abusive and had given her permission to tie him up when he became violent, according to court documents.
On Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Christopher McDonald said detectives in their second interview with Park implied that they would be lenient if she told them she had killed her husband because she was a "battered woman."
More:What's next for Pieper Lewis, the Des Moines teen who killed her rapist?
In a transcript of the interview, one of the detectives told Park, "Now if I was getting treated like that, I would do something, too. I would do something to make it stop. So if that's the case, tell us that because people would understand that."
"It seems to me that's a fairly direct implication that if you're a battered woman who did something like poison your spouse or kill your spouse, then that's OK," McDonald said. "If that is the implication, that's wrong and false."
Assistant Iowa Attorney General Louis Sloven said the detectives acted in an empathetic and understanding way, but did not promise leniency to Park. Deceptive but not lenient statements fall in a legal gray area, Sloven said.
"Empathy and understanding does not have to have a legal import," Sloven said. "It's cathartic. It builds a rapport. It builds a permission structure to make admissions out of the desire to know and be known. That's a good kind of confession. That's something the law encourages."
"As a peace officer, doesn't that imply that it's lawful?" McDonald asked.
"It's concerning on some level, but not a promise of leniency," Sloven replied.
More: Driver gets 25 years for crash that killed two motorcyclists, left another severely injured
Other justices disagree
Chief Judge Susan Christensen and Judge Edward Mansfield disagreed with McDonald's assertion that the detective had indicated he would kill his spouse in a similar situation.
"Maybe that idea would be to get a protective order or to get the hell out of Dodge," Christensen said. "There would be more ways of interpreting it."
Park's attorney, Tammy Gentry, however, told the justices that Park’s statements were not given voluntarily, constituted a due process violation, and that the promises of leniency were never revoked.
"The promises of lenience were pervasive," Gentry said. "The comments were ... based on presenting that she is a battered woman and if she simply tells him what she did, they are going to help her."
McDonald expressed concerns that the Supreme Court could exclude 10 hours of statements because of problems with one interview. He asked how some of the statements could be admitted at trial if the Supreme Court decided to exclude certain ones in a narrower way than the appeal and district courts.
More: Former Webster County Jail officer gets probation for helping inmate escape
Sloven said that if the Supreme Court found promises of leniency were issued, but that certain statements could be admitted, the burden would shift to prosecutors to identify statements that were unaffected by that promise.
But Gentry said all of Park's statements were tainted.
“There were several interviews, but at no time can I point to a revocation of lenience,” Gentry said.
That was the position taken by McCall, the district judge, who also ruled last year that the interviews could not be used because:
Detectives who arrived to investigate would not allow Park to leave her condo and go to the hospital to check on her husband — who she believed was still alive — even though they said she was not in custody and did not read her her Miranda rights. In addition, they restricted her movement within the condo to the point that she could not change out of her pajamas before they took her to the West Des Moines Police Department.
In a second interview, detectives kept questioning Park, even though she asked to speak with a lawyer and it was clear she did not understand her rights when they were read to her.
Though Park initiated a third conversation about eight hours later, detectives failed to check whether she spoke to a lawyer before carrying on the interview.
"Based upon the repeated nature of the implied promises and assurances the officers made to Park during their first station house interview with her, combined with the fact Park clearly articulated her desire to remain silent and to consult with counsel, the Court concludes the taint from the initial interview clearly carried over to all of the subsequent interviews conducted by the police officers," McCall wrote in his decision.
Iowa Court of Appeals Judge Anuradha Vaitheswaran, ruling a year later, said the two officers who interviewed Park at her condo did not read Park her Miranda warnings, but that they also never handcuffed Park, allowed her to move freely and never planned to arrest her. She ruled, however, that in subsequent interviews, detectives used "deception" to "circumvent her right to remain silent," and that those four interviews should be excluded.
No date has been set for the Supreme Court to issue its ruling.
Philip Joens covers retail, real estate and RAGBRAI for the Des Moines Register. He can be reached at pjoens@registermedia.com or on Twitter @Philip_Joens.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa Supreme Court weighs in on evidence in Gowun Park murder trial
