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

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.

State v. Bradley L. Kilgore, 2016 WI App 47; case activity (including briefs)

The execution of the search warrant at Kilgore’s home started with a heavily armed officers, including a SWAT team, entering and putting Kilgore down on the floor at gunpoint; but once the home was “cleared” and weapons were secured and the SWAT team left, Kilgore was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Thus, the statements he made to police while they searched his home were admissible despite the lack of a Miranda warning.

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.

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

Issues (composed by On Point from the PFR)

1. Does the inevitable discovery doctrine require the State to show that information gained through police misconduct did not prompt or influence the purportedly lawful investigation?
2. Does the inevitable discovery doctrine require the State to show that it was actively pursuing an alternative line of investigation prior to the illegal conduct?
3. Does the Wisconsin Constitution bar use of the inevitable discovery doctrine to allow admission of evidence obtained through an intentional violation of constitutional rights?

State v. Eriberto Valadez, 2014AP2855-CR, District 1, 9/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Under State v. Goetz, 2001 WI App 294, 249 Wis. 2d 380, 638 N.W.2d 386, Valadez wasn’t in custody for Miranda purposes during the execution of a search warrant of his home, so the police questioning of him during that time didn’t have to be preceded by Miranda warnings.

State v. David D. Hartl, Jr., 2014AP2921-CR, District 3, 7/28/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)

In this OWI case, trial counsel moved to exclude reference to the 911 call about a possible drunk driver, which is what led to police to look for Hartl’s car and ultimately stop him. The state stipulated to excluding this evidence. But on cross-examination of the officer, trial counsel asked questions that led to the officer referring to the call. (¶¶4-5). Hartl argues his lawyer was ineffective for doing this. (¶¶12-14). While it would be “difficult to conclude” trial counsel wasn’t deficient (¶16), it is easy to conclude there was no prejudice.

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. Johnny Jerome Jones, 2014AP342-CR, 3/24/14, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs

Jones turned himself in for a hit-and-run accident that resulted in death.  During the interrogation, and after being Mirandized, he asked the detective: “So ya’ll can get a public pretender right now?” The detective laughed and replied: “You said it right, pretender . . . . they’re called public defenders . . . Um, we obviously due to the time right now, we can’t, um . . . .” Jones moved to suppress his subsequent statement and lost at the circuit court and on appeal.

State v. Isaiah N. Triggs, 2014AP204-CR, District 1, 10/28/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for waiving a preliminary hearing in Triggs’s homicide prosecution or for failing to move to suppress Triggs’s confession. Further, the circuit court’s plea colloquy with Triggs was not defective and the circuit court didn’t erroneously exercise its sentencing discretion.