On Point blog, page 11 of 17
Miranda warnings, Juvenile Suspect: Age of Child Relevant to Custody Analysis
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, USSC No. 09-11101, 6/16/11, reversing 363 N. C. 664, 686 S. E. 2d 135
This case presents the question whether the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) . It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave.
State v. David W. Stevens, 2009AP2057-CR, review granted 5/24/11
on petition for review of unpublished decision; for Stevens: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Issues (provided by court):
If a suspect in custody initiates communication with the police after previously invoking his Miranda right to consult with an attorney but has yet to again waive his Miranda rights, do the police violate the demands of Miranda by denying an attorney access to the suspect prior to the second waiver of his Miranda rights?
Miranda – “Interrogation”
State v. Randy L. Martin, 2010AP505-CR, District 1, 5/3/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication), reversed, 2012 WI 96; for Martin: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity
Although Martin was in custody and had not received Miranda warnings, his statement wasn’t the result of “interrogation” and therefore wasn’t suppressible. When it appeared that Martin’s uncle was going to be arrested for possessing a gun found in their car,
Waiver of Right to Counsel under 6th Amendment during Interrogation
State v. Brad E. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, reversing 2010 WI App 11; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee; amicus: Colleen D. Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
Forbush’s 6th amendment right to counsel had already attached – because a criminal complaint had been filed – and he had retained counsel before officers began interrogating him on that charge in the absence of his attorney.
Howes v. Randall Lee Fields, USSC No. 10-680, Cert. Granted 1/24/11
Decision below (617 F.3d 813 (6th Cir 2010))
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
Whether this Court’s clearly established precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 holds that a prisoner is always “in custody” for purposes of Miranda any time that prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct occurring outside the prison regardless of the surrounding circumstances.
The grant appears to raise the recurrent problem of whether Miranda warnings are always and necessarily required when someone already incarcerated is interrogated by the police on a different offense.
Miranda – Impeachment – Harmless Error
State v. Marlon M. Anderson, 2010AP742-CR, District 1/4, 12/9/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Angela Conrad Kachelski; Anderson BiC; State Resp.
A defendant’s statement made voluntarily but in violation of Miranda isn’t admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, but is admissible if the defendant testifies and the statement is inconsistent with his testimony. The question raised here relates to how such inconsistency is measured: whether outright contradictions are necessary,
Custodial Interrogation: Request for Counsel – Waiver of Rights – Invocation of Counsel – Assertion of Right to Silence
State v. Patrick E. Hampton, 2010 WI App 169 (recommended for publication); for Hampton: Michael S. Holzman; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Custodial Interrogation – Request for Counsel
To invoke the 5th amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation, the suspect must assert the right unambiguously, something Hampton did not do.
¶30 Hampton alleges that detectives ignored him and continued to inappropriately question him five minutes into the July 20 interview,
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, USSC No. 09-11121, cert granted 11/1/10
Decision below (N.C. supreme court)
Question Presented:
Whether, in the context of interrogating a juvenile in a school setting, “custody” for purposes of triggering Miranda warnings is determined by a purely objective test; or includes subjective considerations such as the subject’s age and status as a special education student.
The nub of the lower court holding:
…
Interrogation Request for Counsel – Re-Initiation by Suspect; Assertion-Waiver, Right to Silence
State v. Robert Allen, Jr., 2009AP2596-CR , District 1, 9/14/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Allen: Bradley J. Lochowicz; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Interrogation Request for Counsel – Re-Initiation by Suspect
Allen’s invocation of right to counsel terminated his interrogation, but he immediately re-initiated communication with the police by asking “what’s going on”:
¶15 “Even after a suspect in custody asks to speak with a lawyer,
Interrogation – Ambiguous Request for Counsel; Joinder/Severance; Evidence – Autopsy Photos
State v. Adamm D.J. Linton, 2010 WI App 129; for Linton: Joseph E. Redding; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Interrogation – Ambiguous Request for Counsel
Initial custodial questioning terminated when Linton invoked his right to silence. During subsequent re-interrogation, Linton said, “when I asked for a lawyer earlier, why wasn’t he appointed to me?” The detective indicated that if Linton was asking for a lawyer then the police would “just stop talking to”