On Point: 2. Interrogation

State v. Brian Harris, 2017 WI 31, 4/7/17, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2016 WI App 2; case activity (including briefs)

“This freedom from compelled self-incrimination is one of the nation’s ‘most cherished principles.’ Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458. We are sufficiently solicitous of this protection that we guard it by patrolling a generous buffer zone around the central prohibition.” Majority Op. ¶12. That’s the principle in theory. Here’s how it applies in practice.

Today marks the 50th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona. In honor of the occasion, The Marshall Project asks: For 50 years, you’ve had “the right to remain silent.” So why do so many suspects confess to crimes they did not commit? Read the full report here.

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from petition for review):

Is a defendant deprived of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and his rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution by the admission at trial in the state’s case-in chief of his unwarned custodial statements made in response to law enforcement’s asking for a statement?

State v. Brian I. Harris, 2016 WI App 2, petition for review granted 4/6/16, affirmed 2017 WI 31; case activity (including briefs)

Incriminating statements Harris made while he was in custody were admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings because the statements were either sufficiently attenuated from the taint of police questioning or were not made in response to police interrogation.

State v. Mastella L. Jackson, 2015 WI App 49, petition for review granted, 10/8/15, affirmed, 2016 WI 56; click here for briefs

This decision is SCOW bait. Police in Outagamie County engaged in what the court of appeals called “reprehensible” actions while interrogating the defendant. “Outraged” the circuit court suppressed the defendant’s statements to police and the physical evidence obtained during the search of her home. The court of appeals reversed the suppression of physical evidence on the theory that the untainted evidence described in the officers’ search warrant established probable cause and that the physical evidence was admissible via the inevitable discovery doctrine.

State v. Carlos Cummings and State v. Adrean L. Smith, 2014 WI 88, 7/24/14, affirming per curiam court of appeals decisions in 2011AP1653-CR & 2012AP520-CR, majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; concurrence/dissent by Justice Prosser (joined by Justice Bradley); dissent by Chief Justice Abrahamson; case activity for Cummings and Smith

These cases address whether two Mirandized suspects unequivocally invoked their respective rights to remain silent, or cut off questioning, during police interrogations.  Citing State v. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242 the majority held that both defendants seem to have meant something other than what they literally said.  Their attempts to cut off questioning were “equivocal” and thus their statements need not be suppressed.

State v. Corey J. Uhlenberg, 2013 WI App 59; case activity

Miranda custody

Uhlenberg was in “custody” during an interview at the police department, so the circuit court should have suppressed the statements Uhlenberg made during the interrogation after he requested an attorney:

¶11      Throughout its arguments, the State emphasizes the fact that the detective repeatedly told Uhlenberg that he was not under arrest. 

State v. Antoine Leshawn Douglas, 2013 WI App 52; case activity

Miranda violation — interrogation by police

After a lawful arrest, but before being given Miranda warnings, Douglas initiated a conversation with the arresting officer in which he stated he wanted “to work” for the police by offering information about some marijuana dealers. After the officer declined that offer there was a “pause,” followed by Douglas changing the subject and volunteering information about a gun;

State v. Lee Yang, 2012AP1126-CR, Districts 1/4, 2/28/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Yang was being interrogated about the shooting death of his ex-wife’s boyfriend when he invoked his right to counsel. Interrogation ceased and he was taken to jail. (¶¶3, 5). Several hours later, Gomez, a homicide detective, visited Yang in jail. (¶7). Gomez had not been involved in the earlier interrogation, but he did help execute a search warrant at Yang’s home,

On review of certification request; case activity

Invocation of the right to counsel

Issues (Composed by On Point)

1. Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide more protection than Maryland v. Shatzer, ___U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (holding that, even if a defendant has invoked his or her right to counsel, law enforcement may give the Miranda warnings again so long as the defendant has been released from custody for at least fourteen days)?