Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

i. Silence

State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶14      Although Cockrell describes his challenge to the prosecutor’s use of his post- Miranda silence as a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, the substance of his argument is the due process analysis employed… Read More

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Issue/Holding: A line of inquiry that suggests potential bias is relevant; however, the witness’s “real and appreciable apprehension” of self-incrimination trumps the right of confrontation. In such an instance it may be necessary to prevent the witness from testifying or to… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Witness – Impeachment — Post-Miranda Silence

State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: ¶31. The privilege against self-incrimination is guaranteed by art. I, § 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution and by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998)… Read More

{ 0 comments }