On Point: 5. Confessions

State v. Scott Leason Badker, 2001 WI App 27, 240 Wis. 2d 460, 623 N.w.2d 142
For Badker: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether Badker’s in-custody assertion of his right to silence was scrupulously honored so as to allow re-interrogation.

Holding: Badker was arrested for sexually assaulting his girlfriend. He was released on bail, conditioned on not having contact with her. He killed her and, while he remained at large,

State v. Joseph K. Bryant, 2001 WI App 41, 241 Wis. 2d 554, 624 N.W.2d 865
For Bryant: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the “routine booking question” exception to Miranda permitted questions about biographical data.

Holding: Miranda warnings need not precede routine questions that merely gather background biographical data in the booking process. ¶14. “To qualify for the application of the exception,

State v. Ondra Bond, 2000 WI App 118, 237 Wis. 2d 633, 614 NW2d 552, affirmed by equally divided vote, 2001 WI 56, 243 Wis. 2d 476, 627 N.W.2d 484
For Bond: William Coleman; Janet Barnes; Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether, following arrest but before administration of Miranda rights, an officer’s response to the suspect’s asking why he’d been arrested was the functional equivalent of interrogation and therefore in violation of Miranda.

State v. George W. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48
For Hindsley: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether a deaf suspect, fluent in ASL but with limited proficiency in English, validly waived his Miranda rights, when those rights were explained to him in English-based (“transliteration”) signing.

Holding: When the suspect is advised of Miranda rights in a language other than English (including sign language for a deaf suspect such as Hindsley),

State v. George W. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48
For Hindsley: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether a good-faith exception to Miranda should be recognized.

Holding: The court of appeals doesn’t have authority to articulate a good-faith exception to Miranda: “(It) is not the proper role of this court to create an exception to, or modify,

State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a statement made while hospitalized should have been suppressed, as the product of a lengthy detention for the purpose of interrogation.

Holding:

¶46         When a confession is the product of “unreasonable police detention for purposes of interrogation,” it must be suppressed whether voluntary or not. 

State v. George W. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48
For Hindsley: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether a statement is involuntary, even in the absence of police coercion, simply because the Miranda warnings aren’t effectively communicated.

Holding: A suspect’s deafness doesn’t alter the test for voluntariness, “which was and remains focused on police coercion, and considers a person’s language and culture only insofar as they bear on whether coercion by more subtle means,

State v. Frederick G. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed on habeas review, Frederick G. Jackson v. Frank, 02-1979, 11/6/03
For Jackson: Allan D. Krezminski.

Issue/Holding: During custodial interrogation, Jackson asked for an attorney, and the detective gave erroneous advice, namely that Jackson could have an attorney once charges “were established” (erroneous, of course, because Jackson had a right to pre-charging consultation).

State v. Lucian Agnello II, 2004 WI App 2, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/8/04, on appeal after remand, 2003 WI 44; prior history: State v. Agnello I, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999)
For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela Moorshead

Issue/Holding:

¶10. Police coercion and a defendant’s personal characteristics are interdependent concepts: the more vulnerable a person is because of his or her unique characteristics,

State v. Jonathan L. Franklin, 228 Wis.2d 408, 596 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Franklin: Archie E. Simonson

Holding: Statement taken in violation of right to counsel rule, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) is not, for that reason alone, involuntary and is therefore admissible for impeachment purposes.

The court doesn’t mention it, but this decision resolves a question held open in State v.