Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

“Edwards” violation – voluntariness

State v. Jonathan L. Franklin, 228 Wis.2d 408, 596 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Franklin: Archie E. Simonson

Holding: Statement taken in violation of right to counsel rule, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) is not, for that reason alone, involuntary and is therefore admissible for impeachment purposes.

The court doesn’t mention it, but this decision resolves a question held open in State v. Billings, 110 Wis.2d 661, 665, 329 N.W.2d 192 (1983), “‘Is a statement extracted in violation of an asserted right to counsel involuntary per se?'” Authority taking similar approach to statement obtained in violation of the 6th amendment right to effective assistance of counsel (i.e., inadmissible in case-in-chief, but admissible to impeach): People v. Frazier, MI App 256986, 3/7/06.

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment