New trial for convicted murderer?

Samuel Anderson could possibly get a second chance to plead his case to an Evangeline Parish jury.
On Thursday, attorney Alex “Sonny” Chapman filed a motion for a new trial on behalf of Anderson after learning that information obtained during an illegal “investigative hold” and interrogation performed by the Ville Platte Police Department was used to investigate an armed robbery and murder that took place in Ville Platte in 2014. Chapman’s client was found guilty of committing these crimes back in April of 2016.
According to Shawana Deville - the female that was illegally held in this matter - throughout the eight hours she spent in jail, she was questioned by District Attorney Trent Brignac and then Detective Pat Hall, who was the lead investigator on this case. Deville also stated that while being questioned by Hall, there were other detectives present as well.
Anderson’s motion claims that “said interrogation turned into a gross violation of constitutional rights.”
This belief comes from the fact that the “investigative hold” performed on Deville was recently cited in an United States Department of Justice report, which found that these holds violate a person’s consitutional rights.
The report stated, “Both VPPD and EPSO have arrested and held people in jail - without obtaining a warrant and without probable cause to believe that the detained individuals had committed a crime - in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.”
Anderson’s motion for a new trial is based on the fact that in the landmark case Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that in criminal cases any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts or in federal criminal prosecutions in federal courts.
While most of the time evidence is thought of as physical or tangible materials, in the case Wong Sun v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that verbal evidence obtained in a way that violates a person’s Fourth Amendment right should also be excluded from court proceedings due to the fact that it is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
In this matter, there is no question that the individual that was held illegally and interrogated had their constitutional rights infringed upon. However, now what has to be answered is, did violating the witness’s rights, which provided verbal evidence to investigators, in turn violate the rights of the accused?
That question will have to be answered by Judge Chuck West when the motion is heard in his courtroom.
At this time, no date has been set for the hearing.
On Saturday, Evangeline Parish District Attorney Trent Brignac released the following statement concerning this matter: "The motion for new trial at issue was only brought to my attention on Friday morning. Based upon a brief review of the motion and attachments, and without the benefit of reviewing the trial transcript, it does not appear the individual named in the motion provided any information, evidence or testimony which was used in the furtherance of the investigation or trial which led to the defendant's murder conviction."

Answer our poll question on our website to tell us if you fell that Samuel Anderson deserves a new trial.