On Point: 5. Confessions

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Review of 2 unpublished per curiam court of appeals decisions in 2 unrelated cases now joined for purposes of oral argument.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

Kansas v. Cheever, USSC No. 12-609, 12/11/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Kansas v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).

The Supreme Court unanimously holds that “where a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination for the limited purpose of rebutting the defendant’s evidence.”

State v. Deandre J. Bernard, 2012AP750-CR, District 4, 10/17/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Trial counsel’s failure to impeach witness with mental health condition was not prejudicial

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to impeach the credibility of a witness who testified that Bernard told her “I think I killed a boy.” Bernard argued the witness suffers from a mental condition that affects her perceptions and recollections and that trial counsel should have requested access to the witness’s mental health records and used the records to impeach her.

State v. Omar J. Smith, 2012AP863-CR, District 1, 9/10/13; (not recommended for publication); case activity

A jury convicted Smith of first-degree reckless homicide while armed as party to a crime and a host of other crimes.  Two issues are noteworthy.

Miranda-Edwards issue:  Police began questioning Smith while he was in custody.  He invoked his right to counsel, so they stopped. They re-initiated questioning (with fresh Miranda warnings) during which Smith said things like “I kind of want a lawyer present,

State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez, 2012AP1818-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 1/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 124; case activity

Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury

Where inmate victim of battery by another prisoner identified one of his assailants as an inmate “with platinum teeth”

State v. Andrew M. Edler, 2013 WI 73, on certification of the court of appeals; majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010), allows police to reinitiate interrogation of a defendant who invoked his right to counsel if the defendant has been released from custody for at least 14 days. The Wisconsin Supreme Court now adopts the Shatzer rule,

State v. Ladarius Marshall, 2012AP140-CR, District 1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The trial court properly denied Marshall’s motion to suppress his statements to police made during on-again off-again interrogation lasting from 10:45 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The court first rejects Marshall’s argument he didn’t invoke his right to remain silent:

¶21      The circuit court found that Marshall never unequivocally and unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.

State v. Haven Pettigrew, 2012AP1860-CR, District 2/1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Reference to right against self-incrimination

Defense counsel revealed her theory of defense for the first time in her opening statement. During direct examination of the lead detective if that was the first time he had heard that theory. Defense counsel objected before the question was even finished, and the court sustained the objection,

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief on the trial court’s failure to provide a no adverse inference instruction even though this Court has not “clearly established” that such an instruction is required in a capital penalty phase when a non-testifying defendant has pled guilty to the crimes and aggravating circumstances.

2. Whether the Sixth Circuit violated the harmless error standard in Brecht v.