≡ Menu

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

{ 0 comments }

State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion For Hoppe: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶46.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

{ 0 comments }

State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion For Hoppe: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Under “somewhat unique” facts, a suspect’s statements made during interviews in a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

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }

Involuntary Statement — Test

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

{ 0 comments }

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

{ 0 comments }
RSS