Share This Page

Alleged White House shooter: Statements coerced

| Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013, 7:34 p.m.
A Pennsylvania State Police trooper picks up an item found in Oscar Ortega-Hernandez's room at the Hampton Inn in White Township, Indiana County, on Nov. 16, 2011. File photo
This undated photo courtesy of the United States Park Police shows suspect Oscar Ortega-Hernandez. He was arrested near Indiana, Pa. on Nov. 16, 2011 in connection with a shooting in which a White House window was struck by a bullet, the U.S. Secret Service said. Ortega-Hernandez was arrested by state police at a hotel in White Township, the Secret Service special agent in charge, Edwin Donovan, said. File photo

WASHINGTON - Lawyers for a man charged with trying to assassinate President Barack Obama by shooting at the White House are trying to get his statements to authorities thrown out.

Lawyers for Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez said in a court document Wednesday the statements were coerced. The attorneys say Ortega-Hernandez was handcuffed to a chair for two hours after his arrest and they've been unable to find a document where he agreed to waive his rights and talk to authorities.

Lawyers said Ortega-Hernandez told FBI and Secret Service agents that his car was stolen at gunpoint and he didn't do the drive-by shooting. He also told them he never reported the car stolen.

No one was injured in the 2011 shooting. Obama was away at the time.

Ortega-Hernandez has pleaded not guilty.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.