State v. Matthew A. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity About 30 minutes into being questioned by police about the death of his daughter, Matthew Lonkoski said he wanted a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
b. Anticipatory assertion
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
State v. Scott M. Hambly, 2008 WI 10, affirming 2006 WI App 256 For Hambly: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a suspect’s in-custody invocation of right to counsel before administration of Miranda warnings triggers the Edwards bar on interrogation absent the suspect’s reinitiating communication with the police. Holding: ¶23 The State argues that in the… Read more
State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10 For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis Issue: Whether pre-custodial assertion (during standoff with police) of right to counsel barred interrogation following subsequent arrest. Holding: ¶13 Hassel is dispositive here. … Observing that Miranda safeguards apply only to custodial interrogations and that Hassel did not argue he was in custody when… Read more
State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80 For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Hassel’s noncustodial statement, “I can’t talk to you,” did not amount to a Miranda-protected assertion of rights, largely because such rights can’t be invoked “anticipatorily,” ¶¶8-15. (State v. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224, 325 N.W.2d 703 (1982) distinguished as a rule of evidence safeguarding… Read more
