On Point: 5. Confessions

State v. Armando J. Castanada, No. 2009AP1438-CR, District I, 6/15/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Castanada: Jeremy C. Perri; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Appellate Review – Implicit Findings

¶30     The postconviction circuit court did not make any express findings as to the credibility of any of the witnesses’ testimony. However, as the State observes, when the circuit court does not make express findings,

Berghuis v. Thompkins, USSC No. 08-1470, 6/1/10

Thompkins’ acknowledgment that he prayed for God’s forgiveness for the shooting was admissible as valid waiver of Miranda rights, despite being preceded by nearly 3 hours of silence during custodial interrogation. Rights must be invoked unequivocally, or not at all:

The Court has not yet stated whether an invocation of the right to remain silent can be ambiguous or equivocal, but there is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis.

court of appeals decision; ror Lewis: John T. Wasielewski; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review: Government Informant

¶16      Our discussion must begin, as it almost always does, with the standard of review.  In deciding whether a person is a government informant or agent for purposes of this Sixth Amendment analysis, the determination regarding the relationship or understanding between the police and the informant is a factual determination.

State v. Carl A. Lewis, Jr., 2010 WI App 52; for Lewis: John T. Wasielewski; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review: Government Informant

¶16      Our discussion must begin, as it almost always does, with the standard of review.  In deciding whether a person is a government informant or agent for purposes of this Sixth Amendment analysis, the determination regarding the relationship or understanding between the police and the informant is a factual determination.

decision below: 2010 WI App 11; for Forbush: Craig Mastantuono; Rebecca M. Coffee

Issues:

Whether the right to counsel under the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits the state from interrogating a represented individual once the state is aware of the representation

Whether a suspect made an equivocal request for counsel during police questioning, thereby invoking his right to counsel under the Wisconsin Constitution and requiring suppression of his confession at trial

Whether the circuit court’s suppression order should be affirmed without reaching the viability of State v.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Miranda – Suppressed Statement and Probable Cause

¶7        First, we will address the State’s argument that Kohel’s statement “[w]e just smoked an hour ago” was voluntary and should not be suppressed. The trial court found, and we agree, that Kohel’s statement was the result of a custodial interrogation and should be suppressed.

State v. Dionny L. Reynolds, 2010 WI App 56; for Reynolds: Russell D. Bohach; BiC; Resp. Br.

Statement voluntary, following multiple interviews while in custody on unrelated offense:

¶45      Balancing Reynolds’ personal characteristics against the totality of the police detectives’ conduct, we note, first and foremost, that Reynolds voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making his incriminating statement. Generally speaking,

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.

“Booking Exception” to Miranda
Questioning to determine Pugh’s “true identity” fell within “booking exception.”

Sentencing Discretion
Sentence upheld where “well within maximum” and addressed “the three primary factors.”

ussc decision

“Edwards” Rule – 14-Day Expiry
A “break in custody” ends the presumptive involuntariness of a statement following invocation of right to counsel; reinterrogation permitted after 14-day lapse.

… The protections offered by Miranda, which we have deemed sufficient to ensure that the police respect the suspect’s desire to have an attorney present the first time police interrogate him, adequately ensure that result when a suspect who initially requested counsel is reinterrogated after a break in custody that is of sufficient duration to dissipate its coercive effects.

USSC decision

In a pathmarking decision, Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436, 471 (1966) , the Court held that an individual must be “clearly informed,” prior to custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.” The question presented in this case is whether advice that a suspect has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers’] questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time … during th[e] interview,” satisfies Miranda .