And your honor is I would like to reserve a couple minutes. My name is Mary Lou Wilson and I'm representing Mr. Prentice this morning. Excuse me, Ms. Wilson, I wonder if we could close the day having some noise in the hallway and want to make sure we hear everything you say. There we go. Thank you. It's an honor to be here. Thank you very much. I would like to focus on Mr. Prentice's first contact with the apartment, Mr. Miller's apartment
. And what does the experience detectives detective long and ramos know when they get there? They know that Mr. Miller has been dead for a week, seven to ten days because he's in early decomposition. We have Mr. Prentice's documents. We know that Mr. Prentice was on probation. We know that Mr. Prentice was a roommate because the photograph was there and these detectives, these experienced detectives took that photograph and went to neighbors' houses and they identified them. We also know that there's a bloody boot print on a blanket and we know it's a boot. We also know there's bloody fingerprints and we also know that there's a swastikker, most importantly, we know there's a swastikker carved on the deceased person's back. These are very key and important things to know
. Why? Because my suggestion to your honors is that Mr. Prentice was a suspect right then. What if he was? I think you have a strong argument that he was, but I have the same question Judge Silverman has. What if he was? Well, what if he was? That's important because the state is trying to show that he wasn't. No, I mean, the question is not whether he was a suspect. The question is whether he was in custody. Well, I think he was in custody. What does he remember? Well, you may think it, but that's what evidence does he that he was in custody? I'm so glad you asked. He was in custody at the time they hooked him up at Diana Gamuccio's apartment. And I'll tell you why. Because I preface what they knew before they got to Diana Gamuccio's apartment
. And I'll tell you the key thing that is a very tiny statement from Detective Long during his trial testimony. He says, well, we went to a Las Vegas, a North Las Vegas apartment. And why is that important? That's important because that's where Mr. Prentice said he was living. And when they got to that North Las Vegas apartment, he wasn't there. And he spoke to a gal. And the gal said, oh, he was only here for two days. So this is my suggestion to you. They knew he was in violation of his probation right then and there. Because he was not there. That's where he told his PO he was
. Oh, they knew that then, why? How does that put him in custody? Well, we're not there yet. But this is- I'm not following your point. You told me they know a lot of stuff. The issue is was he arrested at the apartment. I believe I can prove to you that he was. So with that background of what I told you, what these experienced detectives know when they get to Dan Miller's apartment, they have all this stuff. Then when they get to trying to locate him, they find he's not there and he's only been there for two days. He's in violation right there. So this is a probationer that's in violation. Now, when he gets to the apartment, now things are really clicking because we have all these witnesses that are in the apartment and we have Diana lying. The first person that comes to the door is the mom of Ashley Jenkins
. She's a- you know, the owner and she says, I don't know who Anthony premises. The second person whose Diana says, I know who he is and he's not here. So we know that's a lie because long says that amped it up. Council, could I- your time is ticking. Could I get you to focus on another question at some point? Certainly, your honor. What if there's a Miranda violation? This is an IAC claim, right? A two to five. So let's talk about Prong too if you could please. I'm sorry. Wasn't there very compelling evidence on Prong too? If he- if he satisfies Prong one of Strickland, he's got to- he's still got to satisfy Prong too. Prejudice. Right
. And what about the other witness who was right there and testified about what she saw? Wait a minute, I got her name. I think you're talking about Ashley- A tell, Ms. Halt. What about that? Well, yeah. And Ashley Rittel is a very strong witness against him. Huge. Right. However, I would suggest to your honor that if we could eliminate, you know, we- we do have her as a suspicious character as well. He's only known her a couple of days. She is a prostitute and she's a very young girl. So there's two people on the video
. How do we know that Mr. Prentice couldn't say? Well, that's Ashley Rittel and evil. If all of Mr. Prentice's statements are suppressed and I would suggest to you even before he gets into the officer's car. Because mind you, my argument is he was arrested. He was hooked up. He was separated at Diana Gamuchio's apartment. And he was said, you're in violation of probation. Again, if there's a Miranda violation, can you take your best shot at Prong to of Strickland, for me, please? tougher. I'm, you know, I'm going to admit to you tougher. But Gamuchio, I'm sorry, Rittel is the toughest witness and I think she's impeachable
. I think you could, if you had a strong sense of impeaching her. And frankly, I think the Supreme Court got it wrong because they were suggesting that it was wrong to talk about her being a prostitute. In the trial transcript, it appears to me that she was lying about a prior sexual assault. If you look at the trial transcript, it's they wanted to show, hey, she's lied before. And she's lied about a sexual assault. And so they were trying to attack her credibility, not as being a prostitute, although that's some good stuff too. Let me ask you this. What was the most damaging statement your guy made that they used against him? In the car? You tell me, what is the most damaging statement he's made that they used against him? Perhaps it's his knowledge of the swastika before they told him about the swastika? I'm sorry, but I didn't see where he made me. Why don't you tell me, what do you think was the worst thing they introduced against him of what he said? Let me put it another way. I didn't find that anything he said was terribly inconsistent with what his defense was at the trial. Can you point me to something? Yeah, I know what you're saying
. Probably what bothered me the most was offensive to me the most was, and just irritated me because I felt like it was the Christian burial statement when he takes off his hat. And says, you know, and, and, and, and, and, and, Princess says he was like my dad and long made out like I never talked about Dan Miller. And, and I would suggest to your honor that that was disingenuous to me, but I, you know, we had have him two hours at the apartment separated. And they're talking to all these witnesses and they're getting all this stuff. Yeah, but you're not really, you haven't really pointed me to anything that he said that you say was inconsistent with what he was what his defense was at the trial. I know that he, he, he was like my dad and long says I never even mentioned Dan Miller. So how does he know that Dan Miller is dead? Okay, you're down to about 40 seconds, so why don't you reserve the rest for your. I would thank you very much. Thank you very much. Good morning. Good morning
. Thank you. Your honor is Karen Wheelan for the state of Nevada. Your honor is today on this IAC claim is kind of, quizzical because we have to talk about whether or not we have some sort of violation of the Miranda, which was never itself on its own a standalone direct appeal claim. Or just the issue is did, did his representation fall below the standard that it should be for not having moved to suppress these statements, which weren't challenged on direct appeal as Miranda statements in the first place. So it kind of makes me wonder which direction I really need to go here as most of the briefing that came in talks a lot about these probation issues and whether that made it an actual or that he has actually arrested. Not even the sort of the feeling of arrest or the fact that he thought he was under arrest, but she sort of asserts that he was arrested, which the record doesn't support. So was he taken in handcuffs from his from the apartment to the police station in the back of a police car? He was and that's why isn't that some in dish of custody. The officer explained that for safety purposes purposes. Why wasn't he, let me be clear, so why wasn't he for safety purposes in custody? He was being detained. I would go that far. He was being detained first at the apartment because we sort of have three phases here. At the apartment, they have a whole bunch of people. They're brought out of the or he's brought out more specifically. The others are brought out with other officers as the testimony shows there were other officers, not only metro officers, but Henderson officers. And each person in there was being interviewed in police cars and other locations kind of separated so they could talk to everybody about what they may or may not know about the incident. Did the police report say that he was arrested at the apartment? No, it doesn't say that. What the police report talks about is that he, there's a paragraph in the police report right near the beginning that does say he was arrested on a probation violation. But I would submit to you if you read the entire context of the police report, that's not a chronological occurrence of what happened. It's hard to tell, isn't it? Well, there's an indication that could give you an idea that it isn't. And that is at the end of the report where they talk about the arrest of Harrison. They talk about the arrest of Harrison, the co-conspirator. And I believe it's the last page of the police report
. At the apartment, they have a whole bunch of people. They're brought out of the or he's brought out more specifically. The others are brought out with other officers as the testimony shows there were other officers, not only metro officers, but Henderson officers. And each person in there was being interviewed in police cars and other locations kind of separated so they could talk to everybody about what they may or may not know about the incident. Did the police report say that he was arrested at the apartment? No, it doesn't say that. What the police report talks about is that he, there's a paragraph in the police report right near the beginning that does say he was arrested on a probation violation. But I would submit to you if you read the entire context of the police report, that's not a chronological occurrence of what happened. It's hard to tell, isn't it? Well, there's an indication that could give you an idea that it isn't. And that is at the end of the report where they talk about the arrest of Harrison. They talk about the arrest of Harrison, the co-conspirator. And I believe it's the last page of the police report. They talk about he was arrested before they talk about print is being arrested. And we know that print was arrested before Harrison was arrested. So that's more indication that this is of police report he's putting down facts, but he's not giving you a chronological, a pure chronological view of what happened that night. So when we look at that and then we look at what the US District Court said, it's reasonable that what they said was that the testimony of the officers, the sworn testimony was more credible than a notation in his police report. So- Because to help us with the chronology, they take him in handcuffs in the back of a car to the police station. Yes. They take him into an interrogation room? Yes. Is it like every other interrogation I've ever seen, it locks from the outside? I don't know that fact you're on it. And it wasn't in the record where I could find it, whether what the actual physical appearance of the room was. But I think if you look at Dyer Hornbeck, Dyerview Hornbeck, we have a very similar situation with the detention of a person post crime, very near the crime. And then all of the things that bothered the night circuit about that, but that they in the end had to conclude based on those factors that because it wasn't beyond any reasonable possibility for a fair-minded person to disagree with whether or not he was in custody, he couldn't get relief under Ed Puh
. They talk about he was arrested before they talk about print is being arrested. And we know that print was arrested before Harrison was arrested. So that's more indication that this is of police report he's putting down facts, but he's not giving you a chronological, a pure chronological view of what happened that night. So when we look at that and then we look at what the US District Court said, it's reasonable that what they said was that the testimony of the officers, the sworn testimony was more credible than a notation in his police report. So- Because to help us with the chronology, they take him in handcuffs in the back of a car to the police station. Yes. They take him into an interrogation room? Yes. Is it like every other interrogation I've ever seen, it locks from the outside? I don't know that fact you're on it. And it wasn't in the record where I could find it, whether what the actual physical appearance of the room was. But I think if you look at Dyer Hornbeck, Dyerview Hornbeck, we have a very similar situation with the detention of a person post crime, very near the crime. And then all of the things that bothered the night circuit about that, but that they in the end had to conclude based on those factors that because it wasn't beyond any reasonable possibility for a fair-minded person to disagree with whether or not he was in custody, he couldn't get relief under Ed Puh. So if you line out the facts, for instance, the length of the interview in the house or in the police station was four hours under Dyer, it was about three, a little more than three hours for the instant case. The time of night, it was, I think, seven or so at night until 11, I think his interview ended at 21.05. And he wasn't arrested in 12, 22, 54, which also during that gap of time, they went looking for the man evil and other people because he was assisting them as he had said from the beginning. He wanted to help. So I think if you look at these Dyer things and also the presentation of what evidence they might have against her in Dyer, they told her, hey, people have told us you did this. Like the instant case where they said, look, we've got a boot print. We've got different things that you've told us your knife could have been involved because, of course, Princess is the one who offered up the fact that his knife could have been used by his friend who he sold it to. So I think that if we go to wasy and custody, we have to look at Hornbeck and we have to conclude with Hornbeck and the cases that Hornbeck uses to support its decision that he doesn't get relief today. Council, I'm looking at ER 1309 and one sentence says, Princess was on probation for an escape charge and he said he had not notified his probation officer. The very next sentence says, Princess was arrested for violation of his probation
. So if you line out the facts, for instance, the length of the interview in the house or in the police station was four hours under Dyer, it was about three, a little more than three hours for the instant case. The time of night, it was, I think, seven or so at night until 11, I think his interview ended at 21.05. And he wasn't arrested in 12, 22, 54, which also during that gap of time, they went looking for the man evil and other people because he was assisting them as he had said from the beginning. He wanted to help. So I think if you look at these Dyer things and also the presentation of what evidence they might have against her in Dyer, they told her, hey, people have told us you did this. Like the instant case where they said, look, we've got a boot print. We've got different things that you've told us your knife could have been involved because, of course, Princess is the one who offered up the fact that his knife could have been used by his friend who he sold it to. So I think that if we go to wasy and custody, we have to look at Hornbeck and we have to conclude with Hornbeck and the cases that Hornbeck uses to support its decision that he doesn't get relief today. Council, I'm looking at ER 1309 and one sentence says, Princess was on probation for an escape charge and he said he had not notified his probation officer. The very next sentence says, Princess was arrested for violation of his probation. Yes, and then the next sentence, that's all right. If I could, the next sentence is he agreed to talk. It sure looks to me like the rest of this page is in chronological order. So I don't think he convinced me that there isn't any evidence in the record that this man was under arrest at the time. He was questioned, but if there's a, if there's a Miranda violation, then of course there's still this question about whether there's a tactable decision and what not under, under Strickland, but what about Prong two of Strickland? Is it the evidence against him to me? It seems very, very strong, including especially this one witness, Ms. Rattell. If strong with Rattell, but if strong with physical evidence too, I mean, we know that the boot was eventually not associated with him. I believe that the record indicates that. But we also know that we have Rattell. We have Harrison's own confession, which was a Mirandais confession in his case, in which he gives facts that he would not have been able to give had he not been in the room with the things happening that were happening. There were
. Yes, and then the next sentence, that's all right. If I could, the next sentence is he agreed to talk. It sure looks to me like the rest of this page is in chronological order. So I don't think he convinced me that there isn't any evidence in the record that this man was under arrest at the time. He was questioned, but if there's a, if there's a Miranda violation, then of course there's still this question about whether there's a tactable decision and what not under, under Strickland, but what about Prong two of Strickland? Is it the evidence against him to me? It seems very, very strong, including especially this one witness, Ms. Rattell. If strong with Rattell, but if strong with physical evidence too, I mean, we know that the boot was eventually not associated with him. I believe that the record indicates that. But we also know that we have Rattell. We have Harrison's own confession, which was a Mirandais confession in his case, in which he gives facts that he would not have been able to give had he not been in the room with the things happening that were happening. There were. What was the physical evidence that links prannis to the crime? The physical evidence is the knife that he owned and then subsequently gave to, gave or sold to Harrison. I believe the knife is the biggest piece of physical evidence. I was standing before you drawing a blank right now. It's not disputably the crime, the crime weapon. It is presumed to be the crime weapon. The record doesn't say it was the crime weapon, though it was found at the foot of the bed in the hotel apartment where the murder occurred with blood on it. And also he had some blunt force trauma too as well, presumably with a hammer. There was always the discussion. How does that link to prannis? It's not, it's linked to prannis only in the sense that prannis knew about the hammer, says he touched the hammer, says he never hit him. Of course he says he was never there, that he was outside. So I'm trying to follow up on, Judge Christen's question in addition to retell's testimony, he said there was physical evidence, and I'm trying to put my finger on what the physical evidence is
. What was the physical evidence that links prannis to the crime? The physical evidence is the knife that he owned and then subsequently gave to, gave or sold to Harrison. I believe the knife is the biggest piece of physical evidence. I was standing before you drawing a blank right now. It's not disputably the crime, the crime weapon. It is presumed to be the crime weapon. The record doesn't say it was the crime weapon, though it was found at the foot of the bed in the hotel apartment where the murder occurred with blood on it. And also he had some blunt force trauma too as well, presumably with a hammer. There was always the discussion. How does that link to prannis? It's not, it's linked to prannis only in the sense that prannis knew about the hammer, says he touched the hammer, says he never hit him. Of course he says he was never there, that he was outside. So I'm trying to follow up on, Judge Christen's question in addition to retell's testimony, he said there was physical evidence, and I'm trying to put my finger on what the physical evidence is. That's the physical evidence. You've already put your finger on it. Okay, hammer and the knife. You said there's blood in the scene. Who's blood? Is not, prannis's blood is not found. He said that how does that help link him? It doesn't. Okay, so what physical evidence links him to the crime besides, you know, the testimony of the, of retell? I just said there wasn't a lot of physical evidence. It was, it was testimony of other people, testimony of things. He said later, we're not in custody where he told other people later he wanted to go back and shoot Dan and finish it off. So at the end of the, end of the day, this comes down to retell basically is the, is the key evidence. Well, it made you, but I think it's very important to note that the statements that he made in, in, even the statements that counsel brought up were not solicited by the officers
. That's the physical evidence. You've already put your finger on it. Okay, hammer and the knife. You said there's blood in the scene. Who's blood? Is not, prannis's blood is not found. He said that how does that help link him? It doesn't. Okay, so what physical evidence links him to the crime besides, you know, the testimony of the, of retell? I just said there wasn't a lot of physical evidence. It was, it was testimony of other people, testimony of things. He said later, we're not in custody where he told other people later he wanted to go back and shoot Dan and finish it off. So at the end of the, end of the day, this comes down to retell basically is the, is the key evidence. Well, it made you, but I think it's very important to note that the statements that he made in, in, even the statements that counsel brought up were not solicited by the officers. They were blurted out in the car. They're volunteered and they're not Miranda Violet. They're not. But if there's a Miranda Violation, then we have to ask, okay, what other evidence was there? Well, it was. And you've got retell and then you say there's physical evidence, but on examination, there's not that much physical evidence. But if you take out, if you take out the Miranda statements and rely on the rest of the physical evidence, you still have to come back with any reasonable jurist to come to the conclusion that they did. And I don't think that the burden's been met to overcome that. So I don't think we have shown, there's been a showing here that prejudice would occur. Was it one of the blurted statements that he said, if there's a swastika carved on this man's back then? Yes. He, he, he knew details about the crime scene. He did
. They were blurted out in the car. They're volunteered and they're not Miranda Violet. They're not. But if there's a Miranda Violation, then we have to ask, okay, what other evidence was there? Well, it was. And you've got retell and then you say there's physical evidence, but on examination, there's not that much physical evidence. But if you take out, if you take out the Miranda statements and rely on the rest of the physical evidence, you still have to come back with any reasonable jurist to come to the conclusion that they did. And I don't think that the burden's been met to overcome that. So I don't think we have shown, there's been a showing here that prejudice would occur. Was it one of the blurted statements that he said, if there's a swastika carved on this man's back then? Yes. He, he, he knew details about the crime scene. He did. And those were volunteered statements, those were at the product of questioning. Correct. None of the statements I, That's outside of the Miranda's. Right. And I think I noted four or five statements that were blurted out by him, never solicited by the authorities. At various stages of those sort of three stage. Chris, anything? Nothing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Wilson
. And those were volunteered statements, those were at the product of questioning. Correct. None of the statements I, That's outside of the Miranda's. Right. And I think I noted four or five statements that were blurted out by him, never solicited by the authorities. At various stages of those sort of three stage. Chris, anything? Nothing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Wilson. Got about a minute left. I would suggest that the swastika was a huge physical evidence. And that, Prentice, was in fact linked to that. Because in the apartment, we have to presume that there was some material, Nazi books, papers. They do say there were writings and papers. I mean, he had, when, when he went to jail and they were trying to show that he got in a fight in jail, he had his little Nazi paperwork with him. And the, and the, and the fellow inmate was making fun of his paper. That's why they got in the fight, according to the record. Yeah. So I'm going to suggest to you that these officers knew before they got to the apartment, all of this stuff. I think I'm done, but thank you so much
. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wheeler, thank you. The case just started you just submitted. Good morning