On Point: 5. Confessions

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Whether a juvenile “refused to respond or cooperate” during a portion of a custodial interrogation if it was going to be recorded, such that § 938.31(3)(c)1. allowed the interrogating officers to turn off the recording device.

Whether an error in failing to record a portion of the custodial interrogation requires exclusion of the statements that were recorded.

State v. Thaddeus M. Lietz, 2013AP1283-CR, District 3, 5/20/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Leitz’s statements to police were not obtained in violation of either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment, so the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.

State v. Brandon D Andre Burnside, 2013AP1293-CR, District 1, 4/29/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Burnside’s position would not have believed that he could stop police questioning and leave. Therefore, the statements he made to the police before they administered Miranda warnings must be suppressed.

Randy White v. Robert Keith Woodall, USSC No. 12-794, 4/23/14, reversing and remanding Woodall v. Simpson, 685 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2012); case activity

It’s getting harder and harder to win a habeas case.  Woodall requested an instruction forbidding jurors from drawing adverse inferences from his decision to not testify during the penalty phase of his capital murder trial.  The majority opinion, authored by Scalia, held that SCOTUS precedent requiring a “no adverse inference” instruction was clearly established for the guilt phase of a trial, but not the penalty phase.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity; prior On Point post here.

Issue:

Whether ordering a defendant to open his mouth and reveal his platinum teeth to the jury violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

So, this case may boil down to whether forcing the defendant to show his platinum teeth is any different from forcing him to give fingerprints or a blood sample. 

State v. Stanley K. Bullock, 2014 WI App 29, case activity

How “voluntary” does this sound to you?

The defendant was convicted of 1st-degree reckless homicide for the stabbing death of his girlfriend.  He said that masked attackers broke into their apartment and stabbed him and his girlfriend.  He called 911.  The responding paramedics found the defendant conscious with stab wounds and his girlfriend dead.  During his ambulance ride to the hospital (and while experiencing pain and disorientation),

State v. Danny Robert Alexander, 2013AP843-CR, District 1, 1/28/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/14, reversed, 2015 WI 6; case activity

Alexander was on probation when he was charged with forgery. He pled to the forgery and a PSI was prepared. (¶2). Attached to the PSI were statements the defendant made to his probation agent about two other forgeries.

State v. Raheem Moore, 2014 WI App 19, petition for review granted, 5/22/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 54; case activity

Moore, a 15-year-old charged with homicide, made incriminating statements to police 11 hours after he was arrested. His most incriminating statement–that he was the shooter and not merely an accomplice–came during a portion of the interrogation that was not recorded as required by § 938.195,

State v. Jesse J. Delebreau, 2014 WI App 21, petition for review granted, 5/23/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 55; case activity

You remember State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, 332 Wis. 2d 620, 796 N.W.2d 741? That’s the one that considered whether Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009),

Review of 2 unpublished per curiam court of appeals decisions in 2 unrelated cases now joined for purposes of oral argument.

State v. Carlos A. Cummings, District 4 court of appeals decision, case activity

State v. Adrean L. Smith, District 1 court of appeals decision, case activity

Cummings and Smith both present the question of whether defendants invoked their 5th Amendment right to cut off police interrogations.