SANDPOINT - A 1st District judge ruled on Monday that some statements a manslaughter suspect made after a deadly rollover crash can be admissible while others cannot.

Judge Steve Verby reserved ruling on a third set of statements Zachary Bradshaw Palmer made after the crash which killed Tyler James Pesce last fall.

Palmer, 20, of Clark Fork, is charged with vehicular manslaughter at the felony level. Authorities allege he was driving drunk when he crashed a Chevrolet Corvette. Pesce, an 18-year-old from Hope, was a passenger in the two-seat sports car when it flipped on River Road on Oct. 8, 2008.

Palmer's defense counsel, Sandpoint attorney Michael Waldrup, is moving to suppress statements his client allegedly made, arguing that some were made before he was advised of his right to remain silent and after he had invoked that right.

At a prior hearing on the defense motion earlier this month, Sandpoint Police officers testified overhearing suicidal remarks and incriminating statements while he was being treated at Bonner General Hospital for injuries he sustained in the crash. Palmer allegedly said "it was all over" and that the crash would not have happened if he had smoked marijuana instead of consuming alcohol.

Verby concluded at a continuation of the hearing on Monday that those comments can be admitted because Palmer was not being questioned by the officers when they were uttered. However, Verby reserved on ruling whether those statements' probative value is overshadowed by their prejudicial qualities.

The suppression motion also focuses on Palmer's two interviews with Idaho State Police Trooper Terry Ford after he was released from the hospital and taken to be booked into Bonner County Jail. In the first interview, Ford informs Palmer of his Miranda rights and begins asking him what happened during the crash.

The queries, according to an audio recording of the interview, are met with silence before Palmer tells Ford he doesn't think it's a good idea to continue with the interview and invokes his right to remain silent. Ford then asks about injuries Palmer sustained in the wreck.

Waldrup argued on Monday that Ford continued to question Palmer after he had clearly invoked his Fifth Amendment right.

"Those statements are clearly tainted by the officer's unwillingness to honor his request," said Waldrup, who added that the abrupt changing of the subject by Ford was an interrogation method designed to get Palmer to talk.

But under cross examination by Deputy Prosecutor Roger Hanlon, Ford testified that he did not employ any interview techniques aimed at getting Palmer to open up, nor did he make any threats or promises.

Palmer ultimately changed his mind while he was being led away from the interview room and told Ford he was willing to answer questions. Palmer was reminded that he was read his rights in the initial interview and admitted drinking alcohol prior to the crash, but could recall little else of what happened that day.

Palmer took the stand on Monday and testified that he agreed to the second interview fearing that not talking would only worsen his predicament.

"He pretty much intimidated me into coming back and talking," said Palmer.

Hanlon brushed aside that assertion, emphasizing that the defendant made a conscious choice to submit to questioning.

"He has not articulated anything but his own volitional decision to return to protect himself," Hanlon said.

Verby held that statements Palmer made after invoking his right in the initial interview would not be admissible, but reserved ruling on whether Ford should have reiterated each of Palmer's rights during the second interview.

"There is an issue as it relates to whether or not there is a need to again inform the defendant of his Miranda rights," said Verby, who asked the attorneys to present case law which deals with that question.