court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br. “Booking Exception” to Miranda Questioning to determine Pugh’s “true identity” fell within “booking exception.” Sentencing Discretion Sentence upheld where “well within maximum” and addressed “the three primary factors.”… Read more
2. Interrogation
ussc decision “Edwards” Rule – 14-Day Expiry A “break in custody” ends the presumptive involuntariness of a statement following invocation of right to counsel; reinterrogation permitted after 14-day lapse. … The protections offered by Miranda, which we have deemed sufficient to ensure that the police respect the suspect’s desire to have an attorney present the… Read more
USSC decision In a pathmarking decision, Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436, 471 (1966) , the Court held that an individual must be “clearly informed,” prior to custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.” The question presented… Read more
court of appeals decision, review granted 3/16/10; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee Post-Charge Assertion of Right to Counsel during Interrogation The mere fact that an attorney represents a defendant formally charged with a crime doesn’t bar the police from questioning the defendant; State v. Todd Dagnall, 2000 WI 82 (“Dagnall was not required… 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, following his in-custody invocation of right to counsel, Hambly’s subsequent statements that he didn’t know what was going on (eliciting the officer’s response that he’d sold cocaine to an informant) and wanted to talk to… Read more
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07 For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear Issue/Holding: Thexton wasn’t entitled to Miranda warnings “at the time the PSI was being prepared”: ¶8 Thexton also claims that Streekstra violated his Fifth Amendment rights when he interviewed him during the investigation. Thexton claims that Streekstra used the prior PSI as… Read more
State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04 For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Because the “presentence investigation was not part of the accusatory stage of a criminal proceeding”; and because the PSR “interview was routine and was not conducted while Jimmie’s jeopardy was still in doubt, Jimmie… Read more
State v. Richard K. Fischer, 2003 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/15/03 For Fischer: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: Where “the entire exchange consisted of Fischer asking Vento about the evidence against him, and Vento merely responding to Fischer’s questions, after which Fischer would implicate himself … Vento’s words and conduct in merely responding to Fischer’s questions regarding… Read more
