On Point blog, page 16 of 17
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,”
Custody — Handcuffed in Squad
State v. Zan Morgan, 2002 WI App 124
For Morgan: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether Morgan was in custody, for Miranda purposes, after being handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car.
Holding: Custody is determined under “the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as: the defendant’s freedom to leave; the purpose, place, and length of the interrogation; and the degree of restraint.”
Self-Incrimination — Defendant’s Right to Refuse to Testify at NGI Phase
State v. James G. Langenbach, 2001 WI App 222
For Langenbach: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the state may call a defendant to testify, as an adverse witness, at Phase II of an NGI trial, following Phase I guilty plea.
Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t necessarily result in loss of fifth amendment rights: The privilege continues at least until sentencing, ¶9; moreover, the privilege continues during the direct appeal,
Custody — Detention During Execution of Search Warrant — Effect of Handcuffing After Questioning
State v. Susan M. Goetz, 2001 WI App 294
For Goetz: Nila J. Robinson
Issue: Whether a person, detained during execution of a search warrant but not handcuffed until after questioning, was in custody for Miranda purposes.
Holding: A suspect detained during execution of a search warrant isn’t in custody under Miranda. ¶12. In this case, Goetz was told she was neither under arrest nor would be arrested unless she interfered with the search.
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,
Miranda – Exceptions – Booking Questions
State v. Joseph K. Bryant, 2001 WI App 41, 241 Wis. 2d 554, 624 N.W.2d 865
For Bryant: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the “routine booking question” exception to Miranda permitted questions about biographical data.
Holding: Miranda warnings need not precede routine questions that merely gather background biographical data in the booking process. ¶14. “To qualify for the application of the exception,
Functional Equivalent of Interrogation
State v. Ondra Bond, 2000 WI App 118, 237 Wis. 2d 633, 614 NW2d 552, affirmed by equally divided vote, 2001 WI 56, 243 Wis. 2d 476, 627 N.W.2d 484
For Bond: William Coleman; Janet Barnes; Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether, following arrest but before administration of Miranda rights, an officer’s response to the suspect’s asking why he’d been arrested was the functional equivalent of interrogation and therefore in violation of Miranda.
Miranda Waiver, Deaf Suspect
State v. George W. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48
For Hindsley: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether a deaf suspect, fluent in ASL but with limited proficiency in English, validly waived his Miranda rights, when those rights were explained to him in English-based (“transliteration”) signing.
Holding: When the suspect is advised of Miranda rights in a language other than English (including sign language for a deaf suspect such as Hindsley),
Miranda – Good-Faith Exception
State v. George W. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48
For Hindsley: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether a good-faith exception to Miranda should be recognized.
Holding: The court of appeals doesn’t have authority to articulate a good-faith exception to Miranda: “(It) is not the proper role of this court to create an exception to, or modify,
Miranda Waiver – Inaccurate Advice Re: Timing of Appointment of Counsel
State v. Frederick G. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed on habeas review, Frederick G. Jackson v. Frank, 02-1979, 11/6/03
For Jackson: Allan D. Krezminski.
Issue/Holding: During custodial interrogation, Jackson asked for an attorney, and the detective gave erroneous advice, namely that Jackson could have an attorney once charges “were established” (erroneous, of course, because Jackson had a right to pre-charging consultation).