ATLANTA - Hall County DA Lee Darragh said though the Georgia Supreme Court ruled to suppress some evidence in the trial of a 2002 murder, it will not hamper his case.
"The ruling of the Supreme Court effectively preserves the most important evidence related to the homicides," he said.
The state Supreme Court ruled Monday that when Ignacio Vergara goes on trial for murder in Gainesville, the jury will not be allowed to hear an incriminating statement he made to police. The court also ruled that the state will not be allowed to introduce into evidence the cocaine police said they found in his home.
Vergara and co-defendant Brigido "Topo" Soto were indicted for the March 13, 2002 murders of Alejandro Santana, 25, Buford, and Francesco Saucedo, 26, Duluth. Police had discovered their bullet-riddled bodies in a parked car on Bragg Road near Flowery Branch.
Soto and Vergara, both of Flowery Branch, were arrested 13 days later at their homes and charged with the slayings.
The pretrial record suggests the state will attempt to prove that Vergara and Soto had arranged to buy cocaine from the victims but instead carried out plans to kill them and steal the drugs.
Soto has pleaded guilty.
Vergara's attorneys argued that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress Vergara's statements made to officers on March 26, 2002 and in the early hours of March 27.
Prior to interviewing Vergara, Investigator Ivan Spindola of the Hall County Sheriff's Department read him his Miranda rights, and Vergara signed a waiver.
However, Vergara's attorneys argued that Spindola went too far when he told Vergara, "I give you my word . . . that if this one day goes to court . . . no one is going to know that Ignacio said anything."
Only after the officer's "promise," Vergara's attorneys argued, did Vergara provide details about the deaths.
After Vergara helped officers retrieve the gun and other evidence, he was charged with murder.
Under Georgia law, Vergara's attorneys argued, "To make a confession admissible, it must have been made voluntarily, without being induced by another by the slightest hope of benefit or remotest fear of injury." They said the investigator crossed the line set in a 2007 Supreme Court decision called Spence v. State.
The trial court also erred, Vergara's attorneys argued, by failing to suppress his March 28, 2002 statement, both because by then he was in custody but no Miranda warnings were given, and it was taken after Vergara had exercised his right to counsel.
In Monday's unanimous opinion, written by Justice George Carley, the Supreme Court ruled that when the case goes to trial, the March 26 and 27 statements and evidence will be allowed, but the March 28 statement and evidence won't.
"The Court finds that the investigator's alleged promise to hold the statement confidential was made to Vergara in response to his fear of retribution for speaking with the officers and was not inconsistent with his Miranda warnings, which give him the right to remain silent and remind him that what he says can be used against him. Regardless, Miranda warnings weren't required at this stage, because Vergara was not yet in custody. Initially he was viewed as a witness, not a suspect."
The Court also found Vergara voluntarily waived his Miranda rights prior to his March 27 statement.
"Consequently, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress Vergara's March 26 statements, his custodial statements made in the early morning of March 27, and all evidence derived from those statements."
However, by March 28, Vergara had a lawyer, and while the Court found that he initiated contact that day with the investigator, he did not waive his right to have his lawyer present.
"The undisputed evidence shows that Spindola neither reread nor reminded Vergara of his Miranda rights," the opinion says.
Both Vergara's statement that day and the cocaine subsequently seized as a result must be suppressed, the Court ruled.
Saturday
July 5th, 2025
3:11PM
