Debra Milke's Attorneys Ask Judge to Set Bail
Will Debra Milke be granted bail after more than two decades on death row?
Debra Milke should be granted bail in her pending re-trial for murder because the main evidence against her is the word of a lying scoundrel of an ex-cop with zero credibility.
That's pretty much the argument offered by Milke's attorneys Michael Kimerer and Lori Voepel in a motion filed Monday in superior court.
As I explained in a previous blog item, Milke, whose 1990 conviction in the slaying of her 4-year-old son Christopher was recently overturned by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, may still be entitled to bail under the provisions of the Arizona Constitution.
Normally, capital cases are nonbondable, assuming the prosecution can establish that, "the proof is evident and the presumption great" of the accused's guilt.
But as the motion for a bail hearing states, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's case "rests almost entirely upon the testimony of [former Phoenix Police homicide] detective Armando Saldate."
And Saldate has a long history of unethical behavior that involves lying to judges, grand juries, his supervisors, you name it.
Indeed, in throwing out Milke's conviction, the Ninth detailed at length Saldate's "lack of compunction about lying during the course of his official duties" and his "willingness to abuse his authority to get what he wants."
The appeals court ruled that Saldate's record of mendacity should have been revealed to jurors, as Milke's first trial was essentially a "swearing contest" between Saldate, who claimed Milke confessed to him, and Milke, who insisted she did not, while maintining her innocence.
Given this record and given that Saldate did not record Milke's supposed confession, to which he was the only witness (natch), how can the prosecution show that "the proof is evident and the presumption great" as to her guilt?