State v. Heather A. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242, PFR filed 11/29/07 For Markwardt: Richard Hahn Issue/Holding: Markwardt’s in-custody statement was voluntary: any stress she was under was “unrelated to police conduct” (¶37); she didn’t unequivocally assert her rights (¶40); that the interrogator “was at times confrontational and raised his voice is not improper police procedure and does… Read more
5. Coercion or misconduct
State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell Issue: In essence, this court is presented with the question of whether a custodial inculpatory statement, obtained without proper Miranda warnings, and extracted through the use of police deception, is an “involuntary” self-incriminatory statement and inadmissible at trial for any purpose,” ¶95. (The police ruse involved… Read more
State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion For Hoppe: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶46. Both Connelly and Clappes support the proposition that some coercive or improper police conduct must exist in order to sustain a finding of involuntariness. However, both of these cases also recognize that police conduct does not need to be… Read more
State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion For Hoppe: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Under “somewhat unique” facts, a suspect’s statements made during interviews in a hospital over a three-day period while delusional and in the throes of acute alcohol withdrawal were involuntary despite the absence of any egregious police pressure… Read more
State v. Marvin J. Moss, 2003 WI App 239, PFR filed 10/27/03 For Moss: F.M. Van Hecke Issue/Holding: ¶2. The issue in this case is whether a defendant’s incriminating statement improperly coerced by a person who is not a state agent offends constitutional due process such that the statement is inadmissible. We conclude that there is… Read more
State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565 For Samuel: Robert A. Henak Issue/Holding: “¶30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product of coercion, the police misconduct must be more… Read more
State v. George W. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48 For Hindsley: James B. Connell Issue: Whether a statement is involuntary, even in the absence of police coercion, simply because the Miranda warnings aren’t effectively communicated. Holding: A suspect’s deafness doesn’t alter the test for voluntariness, “which was and… Read more
