CAMDEN — By TAMMY FRAZIER
Managing editor
In a new filing in federal court, Donna Christina Herring’s legal representatives have filed a motion regarding her fraud case where she and her attorneys are claiming that Herring was not properly read her Miranda rights and that she was denied access to her lawyer during questioning by Federal Bureau of Investigation officers, according to court documents filed in the United States District Court Western District of Arkansas on Monday.
Herring, her daughter - Jordan Alexandra Peterson, and her sister and brother-in-law - Marion Diane Kinley and John Wayne Kinley, are charge in a multi-count indictment with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and money laundering in connection to circumstances surrounding the last will and testament of Matthew Seth Jacobs.
According to court documents, Jacobs received a multi-million dollar compensation after being involved in a Deepwater Horizon oil-rig explosion in 2010. After Jacob’s death in a vehicle accident in January of 2015, his son - Jordan Jacobs, and his brother - Laurence Reed, searched Jacobs' home for a last will and testament but could not find one. Then, Herring claimed to have discovered Jacobs' will - which allegedly left the majority of Jacobs' money to Herring.
A lawsuit was filed against Herring, Peterson and the Kinleys alleging that a fake will had been created.
In the motion filed this week, it states that a search warrant was executed “at Ms. Herring’s place of employment, Century 21, located at 301 West Washington Street in Camden… to obtain evidence of wire fraud.”
As three law enforcement officers searched Herring’s work space, FBI Special Agent Tonja Sablatura and Arkansas Department of Insurance Investigator Sammy Green spoke with Herring in a conference room within the office, but did not advise Herring of her Miranda rights, Herring's attorney's claim.
They went on to question Herring concerning the circumstances surrounding Jacobs' Last Will and Testament (LWT), specifically asking her whether she had created the LWT that had been 'discovered' in a gun safe in Jacobs' home following his death, and whether Herring’s fingerprints would be found on the LWT. They also asked her about two copies of the will: A faxed copy from Herring’s attorney’s office, and a copy that was filed in Ouachita County probate court. The agents alleged that the documents had been created online by Herring.
The recently-filed court document states:
“Throughout the questioning, numerous times, Ms. Herring expressed to the officers that she wanted to speak with an attorney and that she wanted to cease questioning until she could do so. Instead of ceasing the questioning, agents informed Ms. Herring that the attorney was unavailable, that they did not believe she was being truthful, and that this was her opportunity to tell the truth. As the interview continued, so did Ms. Herring’s requests to speak to an attorney.
“At some point, Special Agent Sablatura mentioned Ms. Herring speaking with an Assistant United States Attorney. They escorted Ms. Herring out where she met with an Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) in the AUSA’s vehicle. Neither the AUSA nor the agents advised Ms. Herring of her Miranda rights. The AUSA explained his role as a prosecutor with authority in the case and directed Ms. Herring to go into more detail about her previous statement; she complied. Ms. Herring told the AUSA that she wanted to speak to an attorney and had so previously requested. Sometime thereafter, the interview concluded.”
Herring’s attorneys are arguing that in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States established the basic rule that an individual must be advised of the right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination, and the right to the assistance of an attorney any time a person is taken into custody for questioning.
The document presents further details regarding Miranda Rights:
“The Miranda court recognized that without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.
In order to combat these pressures and to permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be adequately and effectively apprised of his rights and the exercise of those rights must be fully honored.
“Accordingly, Miranda requires that a warning as to the availability of the privilege against self-incrimination and to the assistance of counsel be issued prior to questioning whenever a suspect is (1) interrogated (2) while in custody.
Thus, to determine whether the Miranda rule applies to a particular case, the court must first determine whether law enforcement officers interrogated a particular defendant, and then determine whether that interrogation occurred in a custodial setting.”
Herring’s trial is scheduled for Feb. 5 at the federal courthouse in El Dorado.