≡ Menu

2. Interrogation

State v. Lee Yang, 2012AP1126-CR, Districts 1/4, 2/28/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity Yang was being interrogated about the shooting death of his ex-wife’s boyfriend when he invoked his right to counsel. Interrogation ceased and he was taken to jail. (¶¶3, 5). Several hours later, Gomez, a homicide detective, visited… Read more

{ 0 comments }

On review of certification request; case activity Invocation of the right to counsel Issues (Composed by On Point) 1. Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide more protection than Maryland v. Shatzer, ___U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (holding that, even if a defendant has invoked his or her right to counsel, law enforcement may give… Read more

{ 0 comments }

court of appeals certification review granted 1/15/13; case activity Issues Certified: In Maryland v. Shatzer, ___U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that, even if a defendant has invoked his or her right to counsel, law enforcement may give the Miranda[2] warnings again so long as the defendant has been released from custody… Read more

{ 0 comments }

seventh circuit decision, denying habeas relief in 641 N.E.2d 371 (Ill. 1994) and 521 N.E.2d 38 (1988) Habeas Review – 6th Amendment Attachment of Counsel – State Court Findings The Seventh Circuit rejects, on habeas review of his Illinois conviciton, Thompkins’ challenge to admissibility of his statement. Thompkins made his statement after his arrest and, according to the state court, before… Read more

{ 1 comment }

on review of unpublished decision; case activity Issue (composed by On Point)  Whether, after asserting his right to counsel, Lonkonski initiated further communication with the police so as to allow admissibility of his ensuing statement, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 483-85 (1981). There may be a threshold dispute as to whether Lonkoski was in custody… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Pierre R. Conner, 2012 WI App 105 (recommended for publication); case activity Interrogations – Miranda-Edwards Rule – Unequivocal Request for Counsel  The issues on a request-for-counsel challenge to in-custody interrogation are whether the individual  unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and, if so, whether he subsequently reinitiated questioning, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981). Although the trial… Read more

{ 0 comments }

seventh circuit court of appeals decision Habeas Review – Miranda-Edwards  Coleman’s argument that his confession violated Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (interrogation must cease immediately if suspect requests counsel) was rejected by the state court based upon a determination that he did not in fact assert his to counsel. Denial of relief is affirmed: Coleman admits but… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. David W. Stevens, 2012 WI 97, affirming unpublished decision; case activity Miranda-Edwards Rule – Invocation of Counsel, Initiation of Contact by Suspect Where an in-custody suspect invokes his right to counsel and interrogation immediately ceases, but the suspect himself then initiates a request to continue the interrogation, the police may proceed with questioning if fresh Miranda warnings are given and validly waived. Edwards v… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS