On Point: 5. Confessions

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.

State v. Dale Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Gruen: Scott F. Anderson

Issue/Holding:

… (W)hether or not Gruen was being detained pursuant to a Terry stop, or had been arrested for Fourth Amendment purposes, is not the determinative consideration. The only important inquiry is whether, for Fifth amendment purposes, he was “in custody.” To determine whether a person is in custody for Fifth amendment purposes:…

State v. Wilfred E. Tobias, 196 Wis. 2d 537, 538 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1995)
For Tobias: Barbara A. Cadwell

Issue/Holding: That suspect had learning disability, required medication to deal with visual hallucinations but was off his meds during the interrogation not enough to establish voluntariness.