Does anyone remember the creepy sketches of the man accused of breaking into a Valparaiso University student’s apartment and raping her in Homer Court a few years ago? Well, now the man on that sketch claims to have not understood his rights when they were read to him before he was arrested and later charged with rape, attempted rape, and burglary, the NWI Times reports.
In his initial trial, Arturo Garcia-Torres’ defense attorney argued that DNA evidence as well as an incriminating statement should be excluded because Garcia-Torres did not understand his rights. In State of Indiana v. Arturo Garcia-Torres, 64D01-0506-FB-4871, Judge Roger Bradford in Porter Superior Court 1 agreed, and suppressed the statement, but not DNA evidence. Garcia-Torres was convicted and sentenced to 36 years in prison. The conviction was upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Arturo Garcia-Torres v. State of Indiana, 64A03-0812-CR-630.
In this appeal to the State’s highest Court, the defense will argue that 1) at least (2) separate trials should have been held to eliminate undue prejudice to the jurors, and 2) that DNA evidence should have been suppressed due to the defendant’s lack of knowledge with regard to his consent to the test.
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office will argue, however, that a single trial was appropriate due to redundancy and overlap of the evidence. Further, the Deputy will argue that Garcia-Torres knowingly consented to the test, and therefore, that such evidence was properly admitted.
The Oral Argument in the Garcia-Torres case before the Indiana Supreme Court can be heard live beginning at 9:45EDT today, January 11, 2010.