On Point: a. Police

State v. Kruckenberg Anderson, 2023AP396-CR, 7/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

The tragic death of a newborn baby in the bucolic countryside of southwest Wisconsin prompted aggressive interrogation techniques by law enforcement that the Court of Appeals considered coercive in light of the suspect’s age of 16.  But the court found that a reasonable 16-year old would have felt free to leave when the police told him repeatedly he was not under arrest and did not have to answer questions; law enforcement therefore did not have to advise the suspect of his Miranda rights.  The COA affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order suppressing the defendant’s statements.

State v. Adam W. Vice, 2021 WI 63, 6/16/21, reversing a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court and court of appeals held Vice’s post-polygraph confession was involuntary because the police officers interrogating him referred multiple times to Vice’s polygraph results (he failed), told him that proved he remembered the crime despite his denials, but never told him the polygraph results were inadmissible as evidence. As we predicted, the state petitioned for review, the supreme court took the case, and, in an opinion essentially devoid of law development, holds Vice’s confession wasn’t coerced.

State v. John S. Finley, 2018AP258-CR, District 2, 6/12/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Here’s a succinct summary of this decision: “The Majority supports the government’s  ‘interview,’ which utilized lies, threats, and fabrication of evidence to wrestle a statement from a thirty-six-year-old man, who has the mind of a twelve year old and the social skills of a first grader.” (¶24 (Reilly, P.J., dissenting) (footnote omitted)).

When last we wrote about we Brendan Dassey, the 7th Circuit, sitting en banc, had vacated the writ of habeas corpus issued the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dassey has since filed a cert petition in SCOTUS, and numerous organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of it. If you have a case involving a possibly involuntary or false confession (whether by a juvenile or an adult), you might want to take a look at the pro-defense research and arguments presented by the Juvenile Law Center,

State v. Chad David Knauer, 2017AP2243-CR, 3/22/18, District 4 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hats off to defense counsel, the circuit court, and court of appeals for the decision in this case. The State charged Knauer with misdemeanor theft of property. Police had interviewed him for just 1 hour at about 11 p.m. at the county jail. He admitted to stealing a trailer and storing it at his aunt’s and uncle’s house. But then police told Knauer that if any other stolen property was found at the same location they would arrest his aunt and uncle. The circuit court held that threatening to arrest Knauer’s relatives when police lacked probable cause that they had committed a crime was an improper interrogation tactic that rendered his confession involuntary. 

Francisco Carrion v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3241, 2016 WL 4537374, 8/31/16

Carrion’s habeas petition made the novel claim that his confession was involuntary because of the fact it was translated by the investigating detective. You won’t be surprised to learn that the federal courts rejected his claim.

Brendan Dassey v. Michael A. Dittmann, U.S. District Court (E.D. Wis.) No. 14-CV-1310, 2016 WL 4257386, 8/12/16

Brendan Dassey was charged with homicide and sexual assault after confessing to being involved in the murder of Teresa Halbach along with his uncle, Steven Avery. He challenged his confession, arguing it was involuntary, but the trial court and court of appeals disagreed. In a lengthy, fact-intensive decision, a federal magistrate holds that the state courts’ conclusions involve both an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

State v. Jeanette M. Janusiak, 2015AP160-CR, 1/28/16, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Pregnancy does not by itself make a suspect particularly vulnerable to police pressure and tactics during custodial interrogation, the court of appeals holds, so the fact that Janusiak was in an advanced state of pregnancy didn’t render her statement to police involuntary. The court also rejects Janusiak’s claims that her statement was coerced because she was threatened with the loss of her children and was promised she could go home if she made a statement.

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point from the PFR)

1. Does the inevitable discovery doctrine require the State to show that information gained through police misconduct did not prompt or influence the purportedly lawful investigation?
2. Does the inevitable discovery doctrine require the State to show that it was actively pursuing an alternative line of investigation prior to the illegal conduct?
3. Does the Wisconsin Constitution bar use of the inevitable discovery doctrine to allow admission of evidence obtained through an intentional violation of constitutional rights?

State v. Marie A. Ezell, 2014 WI App 101; case actvity

Prison guards overheard Ezell tell her incarcerated boyfriend that she would smuggle in drugs for him on her next visit. When she tried to follow through, the guards detained her in a conference room, questioned her, and obtained damning evidence.  Due to the lack of Miranda warnings, this custodial interrogation violated the 5th Amendment, but the court nevertheless declined to suppress the physical evidence derived from the Miranda violations.