This Southern Indiana man just had his murder conviction overturned | Webb

With handcuffs jangling around his wrists, Joshua Risinger walked into the Washington County Sheriff’s Office.

Salem and Indiana State Police guided him to an interrogation room and offered him a glass of water. He would need it. Because they expected him to tell quite a story.

Earlier that night, on March 14, 2017, they found him walking away from his burning trailer just outside Salem. When firefighters squelched the flames, they found something awful inside: the charred body of Jeffrey Charles Givan – a homeless man who walked with a cane.

Risinger was eventually found guilty-but-mentally ill of murder, earning him 60 years in prison.

But back during the interrogations, police interviewed him three times. He said he offered Givan a place to stay after seeing him limp through town.

That led to this exchange with interrogators, quoted verbatim in court documents:

Risinger: I’m done talking.

Police: Why’s that?

Risinger: Just because I feel like I’m getting pestered, you know what I mean?

Police: No, we are just trying to figure it out.

Risinger: I know but I don’t even know what’s going on, you know what I mean? I don’t even know.

All that eventually led the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse Risinger’s murder conviction.

Judges ultimately ruled the trial court should have barred statements Risinger made to police after he said, “I’m done talking,” the Indiana Lawyer reported.

It all had to do with his Miranda rights. Once he said he was finished, anything he said to police was inadmissible in court.

Thanks to shows like “Dateline” and “Cops,” a lot of us could rattle off our Miranda rights with ease. We all know we “have the right to remain silent.”

But as the Risinger case showed, it’s a lot more complicated than that.  

More:There's an 'urban legend' that drunk drivers are protected in crashes. Is it true? | Webb

More:Lawsuit: North Gibson School Corp. employees abused disabled child, kept her in closeted space

Supreme court

Miranda rights stem from two Supreme Court cases: Escobedo v. Illinois and, most famously, Miranda v. Arizona.

Basically, Escobedo established that a suspect has a right to an attorney during police interrogations. Miranda, meanwhile, found that an arrestee can remain silent in the face of questioning to avoid incriminating themselves.

“Statements made to police by a person in police custody in response to police interrogation are inadmissible at trial unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they were preceded by a knowing and voluntary waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination and were themselves voluntarily given,” the appeals court ruling in Risinger’s case reads.

The American Civil Liberties Union offers a “bust card” for anyone confused about their rights. And organizations such as MirandaWarning.org reiterate that you can stop answering questions at any time, even after initially waiving your right to remain silent.

But Risinger’s lawyers tried to take it further. They claimed none of his statements should have been used in court. He’s mentally ill, they said, and couldn’t voluntarily agree to be questioned even if he wanted to.

The appeals court disagreed.

“We conclude that Risinger’s waivers of his Miranda rights were voluntary. Before each interview, (detectives) read Risinger’s Miranda rights to him. Risinger acknowledged verbally or through a thumbs up that he understood those rights and was willing to talk,” the ruling reads. “Risinger also read and signed a form acknowledging and waiving his rights.

“… We also conclude that Risinger’s statements to the detectives were voluntary. While it is true Risinger was suffering from a mental illness, that is only one of the numerous factors to be considered by the trial court in determining voluntariness.”

What's next

None of this means Risinger is likely to walk away a free man.

He'll still face trouble in any retrial. The appeals court ruled that portions of the first interview – before "I’m done talking” – and the entirety of a second session are still admissible in court. That includes a supposed confession to the crime.

No matter what happens, I hope Givan posthumously finds some justice.

Contact columnist Jon Webb at jon.webb@courierpress.com.