Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Brad Forbush, 2008AP3007-CR, Wis SCt review granted 3/16/10

decision below: 2010 WI App 11; for Forbush: Craig Mastantuono; Rebecca M. Coffee

Issues:

Whether the right to counsel under the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits the state from interrogating a represented individual once the state is aware of the representation

Whether a suspect made an equivocal request for counsel during police questioning, thereby invoking his right to counsel under the Wisconsin Constitution and requiring suppression of his confession at trial

Whether the circuit court’s suppression order should be affirmed without reaching the viability of State v. Dagnall, 2000 WI 82, 236 Wis. 2d 339, 612 N.W.2d 680 (the Sixth Amendment prohibits the police from questioning a person represented by an attorney on criminal charges without the attorney present).

What impact does Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2079 (2009) have upon the facts of this case and State v. Dagnall?

Fall-out from Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2079 (2009), which altered the post-charge interrogation landscape. You can find further discussion here (scroll down to “Forbush”). Significance of this case for SPD practice should be self-evident.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment