A judge has ruled that a jury cannot hear Onstott's statement because detectives violated his constitutional rights. Remaining evidence is scant - no DNA, no physical links.

This is not the first time in recent years that sheriff's office procedures and tactics led to the collapse of a major investigation. In at least two instances, cases fell apart when judges threw out statements collected by detectives:

In 2001, after a judge excluded alleged statements by Joaquin Martinez, a jury acquitted him of a double murder.

Also in 2001, charges that Steve and Marlene Aisenberg lied to investigators about their missing 5-month-old daughter were dropped when a judge ruled that tape recordings of the couple were inadmissible.

The Aisenbergs' attorney, Barry Cohen, said a lack of strict disciplinary actions after the errors and misrepresentations in the Martinez and Aisenberg cases made the environment within the sheriff's office ripe for the mistakes made in the Onstott case.

Lawyers and police procedures experts said that at a minimum, the sheriff's office should review its procedures in the uses of electronic technology and in interrogation techniques.

Top prosecutors and sheriff's officials counter that training occurs often, the detectives are highly skilled and singling out three cases over several years is unfair.

A few negative results do not necessarily show a pattern, said sheriff's Col. Gary Terry, who heads the investigative division. The detectives handle hundreds of major cases a year, including more than 30 slayings.

"I think defense attorneys are quick to point out the cases that are not successful," Terry said. "Some of the most difficult cases in the country have been tried here successfully."

Charles Rose, a criminal law professor at Stetson University College of Law, is doubtful the sheriff's office will be able to count the Onstott case among those successes.

"As a defense attorney, you have a case that you can win - flat out win - get an acquittal," he said.
A Suspect's Rights

On April 13, 2005, the day after Onstott was arrested on a charge unrelated to Sarah's disappearance, he signed a form waiving his right to an attorney.

The next day, Onstott said he spoke to a lawyer who told him not to sign any more forms. He said he did not want to talk anymore without talking to his attorney.

The interview ended.

On each of the next three days, however, deputies removed Onstott from his cell and brought him to a room for more questions.

On April 16, Onstott was allowed to meet with his mother.

According to a transcript, Onstott and his mother told detectives they wanted to talk with Onstott's attorney. Detectives monitoring the conversation from a separate room cursed and talked about what they should do.

Ultimately, Onstott made a brief phone call to Pat Courtney, his attorney. Afterward, Gee said, he described in detail his role in Sarah's death.

To help ensure a fair trial, a judge later sealed Onstott's statement from public view.

This year, defense attorneys asked the judge to throw out the statement.

Prosecutors argued Onstott had selectively invoked his right to a lawyer. He did not say he wanted a lawyer to answer questions, they said. He said he wanted a lawyer before signing documents.

A jury cannot hear that statement because the law requires a lawyer be present for any questioning after a defendant has asked for legal representation, Judge Ronald Ficarrotta ruled.

Additionally, the detectives should not have had any contact with Onstott after he asked for a lawyer.

Randy Rider, president of the National Internal Affairs Investigators Association, said that if detectives think a suspect has asked for a lawyer under only certain conditions, the detectives must immediately clarify what those conditions are. Detectives cannot make assumptions about why the suspect wanted a lawyer, he said.
From Death Row To Free Man

In October 1995, Douglas Lawson and his girlfriend, Sherry McCoy-Ward, were found dead. Lawson was shot four times; McCoy-Ward was shot once and stabbed more than 20 times.

Joaquin Martinez, a Spanish national living in the Tampa area, quickly became a suspect.

Sheriff's office detectives recruited Martinez's ex-wife to talk to him in several secretly recorded conversations.

On the tapes, deputies said, Martinez told her he killed the couple after an unsuccessful attempt to collect money owed by Lawson. At trial, Circuit Judge J. Rogers Padgett remarked about the poor quality of the tapes. The jury convicted Martinez, and he was sentenced to death.

In June 2000, the Florida Supreme Court sent the case back for a new trial. A prosecutor, the high court ruled, had asked a witness an inappropriate question.

Before the retrial, defense attorneys successfully convinced Padgett that the recordings were inaudible. The judge threw them out. Although detectives could testify to what they heard, they were testifying primarily from memory on an old case.

Compounding the state's problems, the jury heard that a detective relied on a transcript of the tape to jog his memory. That transcript was prepared, in part, by William Lawson, the father of the victim. Lawson, at the time, managed the sheriff's office evidence room.

Martinez was acquitted and now lives in Spain.

Sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter said top sheriff's officials could not recall whether procedures were changed as a result of the Martinez case. Disciplinary records expire after three years, so it is also unclear whether any deputies were disciplined.
Judge Was Misled, Magistrate Says

In November 1997, Marlene Aisenberg called 911 to report her 5-month-old daughter, Sabrina, missing. Weeks later, Hillsborough County sheriff's detectives secured a warrant to put listening devices in the Aisenbergs' home. They renewed the warrants twice after telling a judge they had gathered damning information, court records show.

In September 1999, a grand jury indicted the Aisenbergs on six charges of making false statements to investigators and one charge of conspiracy to make false statements to investigators.

A transcript of the wiretap recordings quotes Steve Aisenberg saying "I wish I hadn't harmed her" and "It was the cocaine."

In February 2001, U.S. Magistrate Mark Pizzo ruled that the tapes were largely inaudible and detectives deliberately misled a state judge on applications for the wiretaps. Detectives took statements out of context, either deliberately or with disregard for the truth, and no one listening to the tapes could have heard the statements as transcribed, he ruled.

The indictment was dismissed.

The investigation into the Aisenbergs' missing daughter continues. The couple, who live in Maryland, remain suspects.

Sheriff's Col. Terry said the sheriff's office changed wiretap procedures based on the excluded tape recordings.

When detectives request wiretaps, Terry said, in-house lawyers now review the applications before the information is forwarded to prosecutors.

Terry said the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigated the detectives' actions in the Aisenberg case and found no wrongdoing. No detectives were punished.

Cohen, the Aisenbergs' lawyer, said that is the problem.

Had there been discipline, Cohen said, detectives would be less likely to continue taking risks with constitutional issues.

"Right now," he said, "there is a willful blindness to this abhorrent behavior."

Rider, president of the internal affairs association, said he knows deputies within the Hillsborough sheriff's office and doubts such behavior is condoned.

"I just find that hard to believe," he said.

Terry defended his detectives.

"The men and women of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office do their job in the most professional manner possible," he said. "They respect the constitutional rights of everyone involved, the suspects and the victims."

Unlike the Aisenberg case, the Onstott case has not resulted in policy changes at the sheriff's office.

Detectives have not received refresher training on constitutional issues since the judge's ruling, Terry said. Sheriff's officials and prosecutors stand by their initial argument in the Onstott case, maintaining he spoke voluntarily.

They hope an appeals court will reverse Ficarrotta's ruling and a jury will hear Onstott's statement.

Hillsborough County State Attorney Mark Ober said interrogation issues are not simple - even with repeat training.

Ober's office leads quarterly seminars for the sheriff's office and the Tampa Police Department to update them on new case law that could affect investigation techniques. Additionally, he said, prosecutors field phone calls every day from detectives asking questions about how to handle tricky cases.

Still, some suspects' questions cannot be anticipated, and detectives often must make judgment calls, Ober said.

Detectives "don't have the luxury of sitting in a high-backed chair in an air-conditioned office when they make those decisions," Ober said. "Things happen fast out there."

Edward Mamet, a retired New York police captain who now works as a police procedures consultant, said close calls are rare and usually preventable. The 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona and many subsequent cases have defined interrogation law clearly.

If a suspect decides to talk, a detective does not have to try to stop him, Mamet said. But detectives cannot keep going back at a suspect after he has asked for a lawyer. If there is any doubt, Mamet said, detectives should read the suspect his rights again or stop the interrogation and call a prosecutor for advice.

"It's hard for me to imagine any law enforcement agency can have a problem with Miranda," Mamet said.

The sheriff's office includes about 150 detectives. Experience levels vary. Some detectives have only a few years' experience. They are usually paired with veteran detectives, some of whom have been detectives 18 or 19 years, Carter said.

When deputies are promoted to detective, initial training includes classes on interrogation and interview techniques, Carter said. Detectives also take continuing specialty classes depending on their jobs. Bomb technician detectives may take classes on new technologies; homicide detectives may take classes on blood evidence.

The sheriff's office has examples of solid investigative and interrogative work.

In 2001, for example, sheriff's deputies interviewed a suspect about a missing 9-month-old girl.

At first, the man said he never saw the baby. After a lengthy interview, he broke down and told them where to find the baby - alive.

The defendant is serving a life sentence.

One of the detectives credited with saving the little girl was Michael Conigliaro, the same detective who handled the Martinez case. He is now a sergeant and oversaw the Onstott interrogation.
What's Left Against Onstott

Onstott's trial is on hold indefinitely while the appeal process moves forward. It could take several months. Even if prosecutors lose the appeal, Terry said he is confident about the case.

"We still feel we have sufficient evidence to move forward in court," Terry said.

Even though Ficarrotta ruled that jurors cannot hear Onstott's main statement, they can hear a few others.

In one instance, a detective took Onstott outside to smoke. Onstott volunteered some information without being questioned. Likewise, Onstott's conversation with a nurse who evaluated him and a jail deputy who guarded him while he was on suicide watch will be allowed in court.

Those statements have not been released publicly.

A jury also will hear some portions of Onstott's tape-recorded conversation with his mother.

During that conversation, Onstott sounds remorseful. Prosecutors maintain that Onstott said he committed the crime.

Tape quality will become an issue again, though. The transcript of the recording uses the word "unintelligible" more than 80 times.

Susan Seward, who transcribed the recording, said in a hearing that it was one of the most difficult transcriptions she has made. Onstott and his mother were talking in the background while others talked in the foreground. At times, Seward testified, she had to use two sets of headphones to make the transcription.

Also affecting the quality is Onstott's nearly constant crying. He whispers, mumbles and sniffles often.

Rose, the Stetson law professor, said that regardless of what Onstott said to the detective, the nurse, the jail deputy and his mother, a solid case should include physical evidence.

"They had a confession, and based on that confession, they did due diligence and tried to find physical and DNA evidence to back it up," Rose said. "They didn't find any."

Cohen said acquittals in child-murder cases are rare. Even with minimal evidence, juries often side with prosecutors.

"Juries don't want to let a murderer go loose," Cohen said. "They will rationalize the evidence."

Still, he said, the Onstott case is far from solid.

"The defense has a lot to work with," he said, "if it's handled artfully."

Reporter Thomas W. Krause can be reached at (813) 259-7698 or tkrause@tampatrib.com. Keyword: Onstott, for background material and sound bites from cases involving Joaquin Martinez, Steve and Marlene Aisenberg, and David Lee Onstott.