On Point: 5. Confessions

State v. Matthew A. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

About 30 minutes into being questioned by police about the death of his daughter, Matthew Lonkoski said he wanted a lawyer. (¶12). Under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), the invocation of the right to counsel would mean the police had to cease interrogation unless Lonkoski reinitiated the interview.

State v. Corey J. Uhlenberg, 2013 WI App 59; case activity

Miranda custody

Uhlenberg was in “custody” during an interview at the police department, so the circuit court should have suppressed the statements Uhlenberg made during the interrogation after he requested an attorney:

¶11      Throughout its arguments, the State emphasizes the fact that the detective repeatedly told Uhlenberg that he was not under arrest. 

State v. Mark J. Libecki, 2013 WI App 49; case activity

Self-incrimination — waiver of right to exclude immunized testimony and evidence; no need for personal colloquy

In this case the court of appeals holds that when a defendant waives the right to exclude at trial immunized testimony or evidence derived from that testimony, the circuit court need not engage in a personal colloquy with the defendant on the record,

State v. Antoine Leshawn Douglas, 2013 WI App 52; case activity

Miranda violation — interrogation by police

After a lawful arrest, but before being given Miranda warnings, Douglas initiated a conversation with the arresting officer in which he stated he wanted “to work” for the police by offering information about some marijuana dealers. After the officer declined that offer there was a “pause,” followed by Douglas changing the subject and volunteering information about a gun;

State v. Lee Yang, 2012AP1126-CR, Districts 1/4, 2/28/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Yang was being interrogated about the shooting death of his ex-wife’s boyfriend when he invoked his right to counsel. Interrogation ceased and he was taken to jail. (¶¶3, 5). Several hours later, Gomez, a homicide detective, visited Yang in jail. (¶7). Gomez had not been involved in the earlier interrogation, but he did help execute a search warrant at Yang’s home,

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

• 1. Without obtaining a warrant, police tracked Subdiaz-Osorio’s location through the signal transmitted from his cell phone. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to suppress this evidence?

• 2. Did the court of appeals in deciding that the evidence that came from the illegal search was harmless?

State v. Douglas H. Stream, Case No. 2011AP2051, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly denied the defendant’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion, which claimed that his trial  lawyer was ineffective for not objecting to references to the truthfulness of his confession during a Goodchild hearing to determine voluntariness of the confession and that his postconviction lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge his trial lawyer’s effectiveness.

Question presented:

When a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, does the State violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant?

Lower court decision: Kansas v.

On review of certification request; case activity

Invocation of the right to counsel

Issues (Composed by On Point)

1. Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide more protection than Maryland v. Shatzer, ___U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (holding that, even if a defendant has invoked his or her right to counsel, law enforcement may give the Miranda warnings again so long as the defendant has been released from custody for at least fourteen days)?

Question presented:

Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights.

Lower court opinion (Salinas v. State, 369 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012))

Docket

Scotusblog page

This case could have a significant impact on Wisconsin law.