On Point blog, page 6 of 7
Prior Assertion of Right to Counsel
State v. Willie B. Cole, 2008 WI App 178
For Cole: Scott A. Szabrowicz
Issue/Holding: “Under the above case law, it is clear that, if Cole did invoke his Fifth Amendment/Miranda right to counsel when he was arrested on the battery charge, then the statement he gave Officer Riley while still in custody is inadmissible even if Cole’s waiver of Miranda rights in that interview was otherwise valid,”
Miranda – Waiver – Ambiguous Assertion
State v. Heather A. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242, PFR filed 11/29/07
For Markwardt: Richard Hahn
Issue/Holding:
¶35 The circuit court relied on statements Markwardt made one hour and eleven minutes into the interview for its ruling that she had properly asserted her right to remain silent. Her exact words were: “Then put me in jail. Just get me out of here.
Waiver/Assertion of Rights – Anticipatory (Pre-Custodial) Assertion of Right to Counsel
State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10
For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether pre-custodial assertion (during standoff with police) of right to counsel barred interrogation following subsequent arrest.
Holding:
¶13 Hassel is dispositive here. … Observing that Miranda safeguards apply only to custodial interrogations and that Hassel did not argue he was in custody when he invoked his right to silence,
Waiver – Re-Administration of Rights: Unnecessary Where Proper Waiver 21 Hours Earlier
State v. Yediael Yokrawn Backstrom, 2006 WI App 114
For Backstrom: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether re-administration of Miranda warnings was necessary where the suspect had previously waived those rights following a “full and proper recitation twenty-one hours earlier.”
Holding:
¶11 Based on the record presented, we conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress Backstrom’s statement.
Ambiguous Assertion of Rights — Silence
State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80
For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding1: Hassel’s custodial statement, “I don’t know if I should talk to you” was ambiguous and therefore triggered no duty to terminate the interrogation, ¶¶16-19.
The court of appeals purported to follow Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), which holds that the police have no duty to clarify an ambiguous assertion of rights made after clearly waiving them.
Miranda Waiver – Inaccurate Advice, from Counsel
State v. Xavier J. Rockette, 2005 WI App 205
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding:
¶24 We conclude that Rockette did not waive his Miranda rights. Rockette does not argue that Chausee did anything to coerce his confession. Indeed, the purpose of Rockette’s cooperation at the interview, which his own counsel set up, was to increase his chances of securing some leniency from the State.
Noncustodial Assertion of Rights
State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80
For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Hassel’s noncustodial statement, “I can’t talk to you,” did not amount to a Miranda-protected assertion of rights, largely because such rights can’t be invoked “anticipatorily,” ¶¶8-15. (State v. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224, 325 N.W.2d 703 (1982) distinguished as a rule of evidence safeguarding against substantive use at trial of prearrest silence.)
Statements – Voluntariness – Juveniles
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004)
Issue/Holding:
… In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that a confession or waiver of rights by a juvenile is not the same as a confession or waiver by an adult. A defendant’s age is an important factor in determining whether a confession is voluntary. ……
Here, the circumstances weigh in favor of a determination that Morgan’s inculpatory statements were involuntary.
Ambiguous Assertion of Rights — Counsel
State v. Edward Terrell Jennings, 2002 WI 44, on certification
For Jennings: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the police may continue to interrogate a suspect who has ambiguously asserted rights, — in this instance, “I think maybe I need to talk to a lawyer.”
Holding:
¶36. Applying Davis, we conclude that Jennings’ statement to Detective Kreitzmann, “I think maybe I need to talk to a lawyer,”
Miranda Waiver – Scrupulously Honoring Right to Silence
State v. Scott Leason Badker, 2001 WI App 27, 240 Wis. 2d 460, 623 N.w.2d 142
For Badker: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether Badker’s in-custody assertion of his right to silence was scrupulously honored so as to allow re-interrogation.
Holding: Badker was arrested for sexually assaulting his girlfriend. He was released on bail, conditioned on not having contact with her. He killed her and, while he remained at large,