Crime & Safety
Attempted Murder Case Proceeds Against Rutgers Football Player
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's ruling to toss statements Izaia Bullock gave to Rutgers Police. At issue are his Miranda rights:

NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ — This week, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously decided to throw out statements made by a Rutgers football player to police that he intended to kill his girlfriend's parents — because Rutgers campus police twice did not correctly read him his Miranda rights, the high court ruled.
The player is Izaia Bullock, who is no longer on the Rutgers football team. He has been indicted on two counts of first-degree attempted murder, among other charges, and has since been expelled from the school.
The criminal case against him is still proceeding, and a lower court previously voided statements he made to Rutgers Police the night he was first arrested, in 2018.
Find out what's happening in New Brunswickfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
But Middlesex County Prosecutor Yolanda Ciccone — who is prosecuting the case against Bullock — appealed that decision, arguing his statements from that night to police should be included.
On Tuesday, the NJ Supreme Court disagreed, unanimously ruling that Rutgers campus police twice did not properly read Bullock his Miranda rights. Miranda Rights are supposed to be read by police anytime they question someone: "You have the right to remain silent, you have the right to attorney, etc."
Find out what's happening in New Brunswickfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
From the Supreme Court's decision:
In October 2018, Rutgers Police were dispatched to a campus dorm hall to investigate reports that a student, Bullock had threatened to harm his girlfriend’s parents.
Upon arriving, Rutgers Police Officer Peter Archibald saw Bullock standing in the hallway; the officer escorted Bullock to the courtyard of the building, where they met two other officers.
While in the courtyard, without administering Miranda warnings, Officer Archibald asked, “why are we here tonight?” Bullock replied it was “[b]ecause [he] made a statement” about “want[ing] to harm” his “girlfriend and her family.”
The rest of the courtyard questioning took place with defendant’s back up against the building, with the three officers in front of him.
After further exchanges, Officer Archibald told defendant, “[Y]ou are not under arrest. You are not in trouble. I’m going to advise you of your Miranda rights, okay?” He then provided a recitation of the Miranda rights, "but did not have defendant sign a physical Miranda waiver form because none were available at that location. Also, Officer Archibald did not ask defendant if he wanted to waive his rights and answer the officers’ questions," the Supreme Court wrote.
"Rather, after administering the Miranda rights, asking if defendant understood them, and receiving no audible answer, Officer Archibald immediately resumed questioning, during which defendant stated, when asked what he had said earlier, “I said I would kill my girlfriend’s parents.”
The questioning continued until another officer on the scene received a call from the police captain directing the officers to bring defendant to headquarters.
At headquarters, Detective Lauren Tredo told defendant that “since you’re here” she was going to give him his rights.
Detective Tredo then told defendant, “I know you spoke with officers prior. But we just have to do it again.” She instructed defendant: “After each one, just acknowledge that you understand by saying yes or no, okay?” Detective Tredo then administered defendant’s Miranda rights and defendant verbally affirmed his understanding after each one. Detectives then instructed defendant to read the following statement out loud: “I have been advised of my rights, and I understand what my rights are.” Defendant then signed and initialed the form as instructed.
This week, the highest judges in the state found "Bullock's statements in the courtyard inadmissible, reasoning that the State failed to show a proper administration of Miranda rights. The court next found defendant’s statements at police headquarters inadmissible because Detective Tredo failed to ask defendant if he understood his rights and if he was willing to waive his rights and answer the officers’ questions."
You can read the May 9 NJ Supreme Court decision here: https://www.njcourts.gov/syste...
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.