TRENTON — The state Supreme Court today upheld an appellate ruling that the accused killer in a 2007 Newark murder case knew his rights and legally waived them, orally and in writing, when he was questioned without an attorney. Damu Alston was brought in and read his Miranda rights in January 2008. During questioning by Newark detectives Murad Muhammad...
TRENTON — The state Supreme Court today upheld an appellate ruling that the accused killer in a 2007 Newark murder case knew his rights and legally waived them, orally and in writing, when he was questioned without an attorney.
Damu Alston was brought in and read his Miranda rights in January 2008. During questioning by Newark detectives Murad Muhammad and Christopher Smith, he asked his interrogators several times about having an attorney present. But when asked point-blank if he wanted to keep answering questions, he agreed.
Less than an hour later, Alston confessed to fatally shooting Newark resident Dana Grimsley, who was killed in a parking lot of the Bradley Court public housing complex on Sept. 2, 2007.
After confessing, Alston was indicted on charges of first-degree murder and two lesser weapons charges. The trial court suppressed his confession, but the Appellate Court reversed the suppression, which was upheld by the high court.
The court ruled that Muhammad, a Newark cold-case investigator, and Smith acted properly when they stopped the questioning five times to check if Alston wanted to exercise his right to an attorney.
Previous coverage:
• N.J. Supreme Court to decide if Miranda rights were violated in 2007 Newark slaying case