On Point: A. In-Custody, 5th Amendment

 A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004)

Issue/Holding1:

In determining whether a person is “in custody,” the question is whether, examining the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the petitioner’s position would have felt “at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). In making this determination, “the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.”Berkemer v.

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.

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Because the “presentence investigation was not part of the accusatory stage of a criminal proceeding”; and because the PSR “interview was routine and was not conducted while Jimmie’s jeopardy was still in doubt, Jimmie, “unlike the defendant in Estelle,

State v. Matthew J. Knapp (I), 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590; Knapp I reaffirmed on remand, State v. Matthew J. Knapp (II),

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,”

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.”

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,

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.

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,

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,