Miami students fight legal charges one year after train death

BY LINDSAY JACKSON
OCT. 9, 2007

Five Miami University students are fighting legal charges related to April 14 death of 19-year-old student Beth Speidel.

Kathleen Byrne, 19, Christine Carr, 19, Kristina Sicker, 20, Danielle Davis, 20, and Maureen Grady, 20, face charges for allegedly furnishing the underage woman with alcohol the night of her death.

According to police reports, Speidel’s body was struck by an eastbound CSX freight train near the South Locust Street tracks at approximately 1:45 a.m. on April 14. Her body was discovered at 3:20 a.m. by a second train. A coroner’s report showed Speidel died of head trauma with a blood-alcohol level of .229, more than twice the legal driving limit.

Although the five sophomore women were under the legal drinking age as well, Byrne, Carr, Sicker and Davis are all being charged with providing Speidel alcohol at their Brown Street apartment complex before Speidel left at approximately 11:30 p.m. for Uptown Oxford. Grady is being charged with purchasing Speidel an alcoholic beverage at Pachinkos on Main and High streets.

Four of the five women are fighting the charges. Byrne, Sicker and Carr’s trial was scheduled to be heard on September 20 by Judge Robert Lyons at the Butler Area I Courthouse in Oxford. Local Attorney Wayne Staton, who represents Byrne, Sicker and Carr, has filed a motion to suppress all incriminating evidence obtained by Detective Shelly Sikora of the Oxford Police Department at an April 16 meeting between Sikora, Byrne and Sicker. The defense maintains that Sikora violated the defendants’ Fifth and 14th Amendment rights, which encompass “a citizen’s privilege against self-incrimination,” and their Sixth Amendment right to “have an attorney present at all custodial stages of a criminal prosecution.” The young women’s Miranda rights were not recited nor explained, namely their right against self-incrimination and their right for representation by a lawyer, said Staton. The defense also mentioned that these rights were neither voluntarily nor knowingly waived. Furthermore, the defense argued that Sikora obtained information through unethical interrogation, using “police deception and coercion.” Staton contended that Sikora obtained the information under false pretenses, saying she asked the young women to come to the police station to talk about Speidel’s death without any indication that they could be held responsible and charged. The three women would never have come to the station had they known Sikora’s intentions, Staton asserted.

Carr, who was not present at the apartment complex the night of the incident, has filed a motion of alibi, stating she was not present at the apartment and did not furnish alcohol to Speidel. Lyons has not yet issued a ruling for Byrne and Sicker’s motion to suppress evidence nor Carr’s motion of alibi. If the defendant’s motions are denied, a trial will ensue.

On Sept. 27, Grady appeared in court with Attorney David Thomas from Columbus, seeking to suppress any incriminating statements obtained on April 16. Thomas argued, in conjunction with Staton, that the police violated Grady’s Miranda Rights and the Fifth and 14th amendments in interviewing her. At issue between the defense and prosecution is whether Grady was considered in police custody. The defense argues that Grady “was in custody for purposes of Miranda,” and the prosecution maintains Grady came voluntarily to the police station.

During Sikora’s testimony, Thomas asked whether the detective’s questioning of the young women was an “interrogation eliciting answers to questions” or, as Sikora called it, an “accident investigation.” Defense pointed out that the disputed April 16 conversation took place in an interrogation room and Sikora was displaying both her badge and her weapon during the proceedings. The state countered defense’s argument, saying the young women came to the police on their own accord, left of their own free volition and were never arrested, thus claiming that Miranda warnings were not necessary. Grady is still awaiting Lyons ruling on whether her statements will be suppressed.

All five women were instructed not to comment on the case until all court proceedings had ended and Judge Lyons had reached a decision. The attorneys representing the young women have also declined to comment.

“I can’t say anything at this point,” said Daniel Haughey, Davis’ attorney. “After everything is done, I can make a statement on my client’s behalf if she wishes. But until then, I can’t say anything.”

Michael Baker, the Butler County prosecuting attorney, echoed Haughey’s sentiment. “I really can’t say much with motions pending,” said Baker.

Defense attorney Staton could not be contacted for comment.

Although advised not to talk to the media, two defendants offered brief reactions to the proceedings.

“I just really think it’s hard,” Sicker said. “It’s just a really tragic situation all around. It was a hard lesson to learn.”

Grady said she was “getting emotional just thinking about it. I just want it over. I need closure.”

Grady said her interactions with the media haven’t been very positive, mentioning that most reporters and subsequent stories were not very sympathetic to her situation. “You don’t know how many nights I’ve cried myself to sleep just reading all the stuff that’s been said [in the newspapers].”