Del. Supreme Court allows former death row inmate's confession

A former death row inmate who was freed last year will soon be placed back in state prison following a Delaware Supreme Court ruling that his videotaped confession can be used by prosecutors at his retrial.

In a unanimous court opinion released Tuesday, the state's top five justices overturned a lower court's decision to toss the videotaped confession in which Jermaine Wright admits to the 1991 murder of Phillip Seifert, a disabled liquor store clerk.

The confession was the linchpin of the state's death penalty case against Wright more than two decades ago – and would have made it nearly impossible to prosecute Wright at a retrial had the court not allowed the tape to be played.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said Tuesday that as soon as the Supreme Court's order is finalized, Wright will be taken back into custody to await his retrial. A time frame was not immediately available.

“The Department of Justice thinks the state Supreme Court made the proper decision in allowing Jermaine Wright’s confession to be used in a trial, and we are committed to seeking justice for Phillip Seifert's family," spokesman Carl Kanefsky said in a statement.

Eugene Maurer, an attorney representing Wright, called the court decision disappointing and said he also is waiting to hear when Wright will be taken back into custody.

The court's decision is the latest in the appeals process for Wright that has captured the attention of capital punishment opponents and supporters at a time when the practice is being scrutinized in the state. An effort to repeal the death penalty failed in the House Committee last year but could find new life in this session.

Wright was one of Delaware's longest serving inmates on death row before he was freed last year.

He was accused of shooting Seifert, 66, three times – once in the neck and twice in the head – during a robbery of the former Hi-Way Inn on Governor Printz Boulevard on Jan. 14, 1991.

There were no eyewitnesses and no physical evidence from the murder, but an anonymous tip led police to Wright. Police did not have probable cause to charge him so they arrested him as a suspect in two unrelated shootings.

While being interviewed by police at the Wilmington Police headquarters, he confessed on camera to the Hi-Way Inn murder.

The state then used the videotaped confession to convince a jury to convict Wright and sentence him to death in 1992. Since then, his case wound its way through the lengthy appeals process that is often standard in death penalty cases.

His break came in 2014 when the Supreme Court overturned his conviction and ordered a retrial on the grounds that prosecutors withheld evidence in 1991 about a second robbery that occurred at Brandywine Village Liquors, a store about a mile and a half away from the Hi-Way Inn.

In anticipation of the retrial, Wright’s attorneys filed a motion to suppress the videotaped confession, saying Wright was highly susceptible to suggestion and was not properly read his Miranda rights when he confessed at age 18.

Jermaine Wright case tests Delaware's death penalty

Delaware Supreme Court hears case for freed death row inmate

Superior Court Judge John A. Parkins Jr. granted the motion. In a rare turn of events, prosecutors had to drop the charges against Wright and free him from prison in order to appeal Parkins' decision to the Supreme Court.

When state prosecutors and Wright's defense attorneys went head-to-head at the Supreme Court in October, Wright sat quietly in the audience. He watched as his attorneys argued that he was withdrawing from heroin when police interrogated him for 13 hours while he was handcuffed to a desk.

The state responded, saying Wright was properly read his Miranda rights by three separate detectives.

The first two detectives who interviewed Wright were not videotaped but testified that they had read him his rights.The third detective was videotaped and incorrectly stated the Miranda warning as, "You have the right, right now, at anytime, to have an attorney present with you, if you so desire. Can't afford to hire one, if the state feels that you're diligent and need one, they'll appoint one for you."

The Supreme Court ruling this week sided with the prosecution and found that previous rulings had firmly established that Wright was read his Miranda rights and had voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent or to have an attorney present.

"The Superior Court erred in determining that the law of the case doctrine did not apply and in suppressing the statement. Based on the law of the case, Wright's Miranda rights were adequately explained and waived, and therefore, his statement is admissible," the court opinion said.

The court ruling went on to say that a new judge should be assigned for the retrial.

"The judge currently assigned to the case has stated on the record that he has virtually no confidence in the state's evidence," the court wrote. "Because of this and other comments of record, we have concluded that the 'public's confidence in the impartial administration of justice would be enhanced if' a new judge presided over Wright's case on remand."

Maurer said he thought Parkins was fair in this case, but added he is confident that a newly assigned judge will also do a good job.

"Judge Parkins is an excellent judge and has always been fair to all sides before him," he said. "I'm not terribly sure why they felt the need to do what they did."

Contact Jessica Masulli Reyes at (302) 324-2777, jmreyes@delawareonline.com or Twitter @JessicaMasulli.