State v. Thaddeus M. Lietz, 2013AP1283-CR, District 3, 5/20/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity Leitz’s statements to police were not obtained in violation of either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment, so the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion. Lietz had been issued a forfeiture citation for trespass in Waukesha county when Appleton Police… Read more
1. Miranda custody
State v. Brandon D Andre Burnside, 2013AP1293-CR, District 1, 4/29/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Burnside’s position would not have believed that he could stop police questioning and leave. Therefore, the statements he made to the police before they administered Miranda warnings must be suppressed… Read more
State v. Deandre J. Bernard, 2012AP750-CR, District 4, 10/17/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity Trial counsel’s failure to impeach witness with mental health condition was not prejudicial Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to impeach the credibility of a witness who testified that Bernard told her “I think I… Read more
State v. Matthew A. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity About 30 minutes into being questioned by police about the death of his daughter, Matthew Lonkoski said he wanted a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… Read more
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… Read more
Bobby v. Archie Dixon, USSC No. 10-1540, 11/7/11 (per curiam), reversing Dixon v. Houk, 627 F.3d 553 (6th Cir 2010) Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal… Read more
Docket Decision below (617 F.3d 813 (6th Cir 2010)) Question Presented (by Scotusblog): Whether this Court’s clearly established precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 holds that a prisoner is always “in custody” for purposes of Miranda any time that prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct occurring outside the prison… Read more
State v. Colin G. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85 For Schloegel: Sarvan Singh Issue/Holding: High school student Schloegel was not in custody for Miranda purposes, notwithstanding that he was frisked by police officer, compelled under school policy to consent to search of his car and asked, prior to formal arrest, incriminatory questions; analogy to State v. Dale Gruen, 218… Read more
