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
A. In-Custody, 5th Amendment
State v. Maurice S. Ewing, 2005 WI App 206 For Ewing: David R. Karpe Issue/Holding: Where the defendant waived his rights and gave pre-trial statements to the police and presented an alibi defense at trial, prosecutorial evidence that the defendant had not revealed the alibi during those statements, and exploitation of that omission during closing argument… Read more
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004) Issue/Holding1: In determining whether a person is “in custody,” the question is whether, examining the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the petitioner’s position would have felt “at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). In making this… Read more
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004) Issue/Holding: … In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that a confession or waiver of rights by a juvenile is not the same as a confession or waiver by an adult. A defendant’s age is an important factor in determining whether a confession is voluntary. ……… 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
State v. Richard K. Fischer, 2003 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/15/03 For Fischer: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: ¶19. Applying Davis and Jennings here, we conclude that Fischer’s statement to detectives that if the officers read him his rights he would not answer any questions and would request an attorney is sufficiently ambiguous or equivocal such that a reasonable officer… Read more
State v. Matthew J. Knapp (I), 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590; Knapp I reaffirmed on remand, State v. Matthew J. Knapp (II), 2005 WI 127 For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell Issue: Whether physical evidence derived from a statement taken in violation of Miranda is… Read more
