State v. Jeffrey L. Torkelson, 2007 WI App 272, PFR filed 11/30/07 For Torkelson: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: Custody, for purposes of Miranda, requires that the suspect’s freedom be restricted to a degree associated with formal arrest, and is as gauged by a multi-factor test articulated in State v. Zan Morgan, 2002 WI App 124, ¶¶13-14. None of those… Read more
A. In-Custody, 5th Amendment
State v. Heather A. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242, PFR filed 11/29/07 For Markwardt: Richard Hahn Issue/Holding: ¶35 The circuit court relied on statements Markwardt made one hour and eleven minutes into the interview for its ruling that she had properly asserted her right to remain silent. Her exact words were: “Then put me in jail. Just… 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. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶16 Building on footnote 11 in Doyle, courts have recognized situations in which it is not a violation of due process for the prosecutor to elicit on cross-examination the fact of the defendant’s post- Miranda silence for… Read more
State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶31 … (A)s long as the prosecutor does not ask the jury to make a direct inference of guilt from the defendant’s post-arrest silence, asking the jury to draw inferences that impeach the defendant’s volunteered testimony on… 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. Yediael Yokrawn Backstrom, 2006 WI App 114 For Backstrom: Timothy A. Provis Issue: Whether re-administration of Miranda warnings was necessary where the suspect had previously waived those rights following a “full and proper recitation twenty-one hours earlier.” Holding: ¶11 Based on the record presented, we conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress… Read more
State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80 For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1: Hassel’s custodial statement, “I don’t know if I should talk to you” was ambiguous and therefore triggered no duty to terminate the interrogation, ¶¶16-19. The court of appeals purported to follow Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994)… Read more
