Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

a. Ambiguous/unequivocal

State v. Andrew M. Edler, 2013 WI 73, on certification of the court of appeals; majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010), allows police to reinitiate interrogation of a defendant who invoked his right to counsel if the defendant has been released from custody for at least 14… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ladarius Marshall, 2012AP140-CR, District 1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity The trial court properly denied Marshall’s motion to suppress his statements to police made during on-again off-again interrogation lasting from 10:45 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The court first rejects Marshall’s argument he didn’t invoke his right to… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Corey J. Uhlenberg, 2013 WI App 59; case activity Miranda custody Uhlenberg was in “custody” during an interview at the police department, so the circuit court should have suppressed the statements Uhlenberg made during the interrogation after he requested an attorney: ¶11      Throughout its arguments, the State emphasizes the fact that the detective repeatedly… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity Issues (from the Petition for Review): 1. Without obtaining a warrant, police tracked Subdiaz-Osorio’s location through the signal transmitted from his cell phone. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to suppress this evidence? 2. Did the court of appeals in deciding that… 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 }

on review of unpublished decision; case activity Issue (composed by On Point)  Whether, after asserting his right to counsel, Lonkonski initiated further communication with the police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 }