×

Judge rules on Pendleton suppression motion

Joshua Pendleton

Some incriminating statements made to law enforcement by the man accused of murdering the Rev. Al Henderson will not be admissible during the jury trial for the crime, a District Court judge ruled on Friday.

According to the motion to suppress filed by the defense in March, defendant Josh Pendleton, 37, of Fort Dodge, was denied his constitutional rights when law enforcement obtained his statements in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The defense argued that because of those violations, all statements made by Pendleton to law enforcement that night should be suppressed.

Pendleton is accused of killing Henderson in the parking lot of St. Paul Lutheran Church on the evening of Oct. 2, 2019.

In a 22-page order, District Court Judge Gina Badding, who is presiding over the case, ruled that “while most of Pendleton’s statements were voluntarily and spontaneously made, the Court does find that some should be suppressed as the product of custodial interrogation.”

During the motion to suppress hearing, Iowa Assistant Attorney General Douglas Hammerand presented evidence to support the prosecution’s resistance to the motion to suppress. The exhibits included body cam videos of the evening, along with a video from the interview room and testimony from Sgt. Evan Thompson and former Webster County Jailer Sgt. Joshua Pyle. Redacted depositions from Detective Larry Hedlund and Capt. Dennis Quinn, of the Fort Dodge Police Department, were also offered by the state, but the court declined as the depositions would not give the opportunity for the defense to cross-examine and ask questions specific to the motion to suppress.

In reviewing the evidence and testimony, Badding found that statements made by Pendleton at the Law Enforcement Center after Hedlund had asked about a cut on Pendleton’s hand and before Pendleton signed a waiver of his Miranda rights must be suppressed.

All defendants in criminal cases must be properly advised of their Miranda Rights, including the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney and that anything they say during interviews with law enforcement can be used against them. Defendants can sign a waiver of those Miranda rights, which Pendleton eventually did on that evening.

According to evidence cited in Badding’s ruling, minutes after placing Pendleon into the interview room at the LEC, Hedlund entered and sat close to him. Hedlund told Pendleton that he’s not under arrest several times and asks if he has a cut on his hand. Pendleton then made more statements, which include some details about the crime, before Hedlund moves into the Miranda warnings.

“Although Hedlund made a single inquiry, it was designed to elicit an incriminating response from Pendleton,” the ruling reads.

Badding also granted the suppression of statements Pendleton made later on after he had signed a Miranda waiver. After a short time, Pendleton had invoked his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney, but Hedlund continued to engage and ask Pendleton if he could take a picture of his hands.

“Pendleton continues to request a lawyer, but his requests are interspersed with questions about what’s happening,” the suppression order reads. “Rather than remaining silent, Hedlund responds to these questions. Many of his responses are antagonizing and designed to elicit a reaction from Pendleton.”

Statements made by Pendleton after he invokes his Miranda rights until he leaves the interview room with Pyle to be booked at the jail are not admissible, Badding ruled.

However, statements Pendleton made after that point were “voluntary and spontaneous” and are admissible in court.

In the motion to suppress, Pendleton’s defense attorneys argued that the waiver he signed of his Miranda rights that night was not valid because it was not made “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily,” and that his mental illness precluded him from making that decision clearly.

However, Badding noted in her ruling that “mental illness itself does not deprive a waiver or confession of voluntariness” and that in review of video recording, Pendleton showed an ability to understand the questions being asked of him and to respond appropriately.

Badding ruled that the waiver was voluntary.

Badding also ruled that statements Pendleton made while he was in custody at his apartment were “not the product of interrogation but instead voluntarily and spontaneously made,” and are admissible at trial.

“Pendleton started talking almost immediately upon his arrival home and without any questions being asked by police,” the ruling reads. “…Officers were mostly silent and did not do anything to encourage Pendleton to keep talking.”

The ruling comes two weeks after the motion was argued in court.

The jury trial for Pendleton’s first-degree murder and robbery charges is scheduled to commence April 19 at the Scott County Courthouse in Davenport.

The venue for the trial was moved to Scott County by order of the court in July after the defense attorneys raised the concern of extensive pretrial media coverage possibly impeding the impartiality of the jury pool.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today