On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Eastern District grants habeas; COA unreasonably applied Miranda progeny
Ladarius Marshall v. Scott Eckstein, No. 15-CV-008 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 22, 2020)
Marshall pleaded to homicide and other charges. Before he did so, though, he moved to suppress statements he’d made during more than 12 hours of interrogation at the police station (he was 16 years old at the time). The trial court and our court of appeals held that the interrogating officers “scrupulously honored” Marshall’s multiple assertions that he didn’t want to talk with them anymore. The federal district court finds this conclusion unreasonable because the officers deflected his refusals to talk and cajoled him into continuing. What’s more, the court says that even his later statements–given to officers who did follow Miranda‘s rules–must be suppressed because they were too closely connected to his original, unlawfully-taken statements.
Noncustodial Administration of Rights: Obviates Need for Custodial Re-Administration
State v. Marchand Grady, 2009 WI 47, affirming summary order
For Grady: Carl W. Chessir
Issue: Whether administration of Miranda rights in a noncustodial setting obviated the need for re-administration of rights when the interview became custodial about 2 and one-half hours later.
Holding:
¶15 Grady advances a creative, but not heretofore unheard of argument. He asks us to adopt a bright-line rule requiring the administration of Miranda warnings after a person is placed in official custody,
Miranda – Waiver – Re-Administration of Rights Unnecessary
State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell
Issue/Holding: Where Miranda rights were properly given at the outset of the “first segment” of interrogation, re-administration of rights wasn’t necessary for “second segment,” several hours later, ¶¶24-28.
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.