On Point: 5. Confessions

State v. Ladarius Marshall, 2012AP140-CR, District 1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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State v. Haven Pettigrew, 2012AP1860-CR, District 2/1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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.

State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2013 WI 51, on review of unpublished court of appeals decision;  case activity

Sahs, on probation for child pornography, admitted to his probation agent that he again possessed child pornography. He was charged based on evidence seized as a result of his admission. He sought to suppress the evidence, claiming his admissions were compelled by the threat of revocation if he didn’t give his agent a true and accurate account of his activities. 

Genovevo Salinas v. Texas, USSC No. 12-246, 6/17/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming Salinas v. State, 369 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

Consistent with the rule applied to a defendant’s silence after being informed of his Miranda rights, the Supreme Court holds that a suspect who is being questioned before he was arrested and read Miranda does not invoke his right against self-incrimination by merely staying quiet in response to police questioning.

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,