A man accused of fatally stabbing Sabrina Galusha, 23, of Concord in spring 2017 is asking a judge to throw out statements he made to police in the hours after her death.
Daswan Jette is arguing in Merrimack County Superior Court that Concord police unlawfully arrested him under the guise of executing a search warrant, interrogated him after he invoked his right to have an attorney present and questioned him despite the fact that he did not understand his Miranda rights. Through his attorneys, he also maintains that statements he made to police were not voluntary as he suffers from significant mental health diagnoses that stem from a broken childhood.
The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office has objected, saying there is no evidence he was impaired and unable to understand officers who read him his rights. Prosecutors say Jette indicated he understood his rights and voluntarily chose to speak with police detectives investigating Galusha’s murder.
“The defendant said in the midst of the interview that he would have invoked his right to counsel if he had been told at the outset that he was the suspect in a stabbing,” Senior Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Agati wrote in his objection.
Jette told investigators approximately 12 minutes into a recorded interview at the Concord Police Department: “If you guys had told me that (I was a suspect) way before, I would have asked for a lawyer.”
Jette, 23, faces alternative counts of first- and second-degree murder in connection with Galusha’s death. Prosecutors allege Jette stabbed Galusha, a lifelong Concord resident, multiple times in a marijuana deal gone bad outside the Penacook Place Apartments on the night of May 30, 2017.
Four police officers served Jette with a search warrant of his apartment on May 31 at approximately 6 a.m., at which time they explained they would be transporting him to the police department where he would be temporarily detained, public defenders Caroline Smith and Alexander Vitale wrote in their motion to suppress.
But Jette was never allowed to voluntarily leave the station, attorneys said; rather, he was held in custody for almost eight hours until his formal arrest at 2 p.m.
“When the police went to Mr. Jette’s house on the morning of May 31, 2017, they had a search warrant for his apartment as well as a warrant for the search of his person. This warrant did not allow the police to arrest him,” wrote Smith and Vitale. “It did not authorize law enforcement to seize Mr. Jette and take him to the police station, and it certainly did not authorize the police to seize him for purposes of interrogation, nor to hold him after the search was completed.”
Prosecutors are not contesting that Jette was in custody when they drove him to the police station that morning. However, they disagree that officers “interrogated” Jette during the roughly 11-minute car ride, characterizing it instead as “idol chit-chat” that arose from a routine conversation about the defendant’s background, including his education and work history.
“Questioning was limited to obtain biographical information attendant to normal custodial processes and to evaluate the defendant’s mental state,” Agati wrote. “At no time did the detectives stray from this limited area of inquiry, inquire into the defendant’s actions or whereabouts the night before, or suggest (either directly or implicitly) that the defendant do so.”
Agati said Jette did make “spontaneous statements” to police that were beyond the scope of their inquiry but that he did so voluntarily.
Defense attorneys disagree in their motion to suppress, saying that Jette’s mental health and developmental disabilities prohibit him from doing so, and that, as a result, his statements don’t hold up under the law.
“As the police began to interrogate Mr. Jette at the police station, he gave peculiar answers that made them aware that he had some mental health and possible intellectual issues,” Smith and Vitale wrote. “Mr. Jette essentially apologized for what he may do and how he may act towards the police before ever being interrogated.”
While defense counsel raised concerns in late 2017 about Jette’s ability to stand trial on the murder charges, Judge John Kissinger Jr. ultimately found him mentally competent and able to understand the criminal proceedings. He did so, however, while acknowledging Jette’s deeply complex history.
Agati references the court’s decision in his objection, noting that Jette failed to meet the criteria for a diagnosis for an intellectual disability.
The competency evaluation “shows he does not have a problem understanding what is at stake when talking with members of law enforcement, and that he has and will put on ‘an act’ to fake the severity of any mental health issues,” Agati said. “This was established by evidence the Court heard during the competency hearing on the defendant’s jail calls where he told others he was putting on an act to deceive the Court.”
While Jette continues to maintain his innocence, his attorneys previously filed notice in court to preserve his right to present an insanity defense at trial. He has also raised claims of self-defense.
Kissinger has not yet ruled on the motion to suppress. In the meantime, the murder case is inching closer to trial. Jury selection is scheduled for December, with an eight-day trial slated to begin Jan. 7 in Concord.