COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

September 18, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2022AP1118-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2018CF45

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

 V.

JESSE L.A. SCHULTZ,

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Fond du Lac

County: ANDREW J. CHRISTENSON, Judge. Affirmed. 

Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Lazar, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent 

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). 
No. 2022AP1118-CR

2

¶1 PER CURIAM. Jesse L.A. Schultz appeals a judgment convicting 

him of first-degree reckless homicide with use of a dangerous weapon. Shultz 

argues: (1) the circuit court erred by requiring him to appear by telephone at the 

evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress; and (2) he was “in custody” for 

Miranda1 purposes during his first interrogation on November 10, 2017, so the

court should have suppressed statements and evidence obtained from him during 

that interrogation. We reject these arguments and, therefore, we affirm. 

¶2 On September 23, 2017, Schultz and his co-defendant, Devon 

Neuman, shot and killed Logan Foster outside the Press Box Tavern in 

Fond du Lac. On November 10, 2017, the police interviewed Schultz about the 

shooting at the Fond du Lac County Jail, where Schultz was being held on an 

unrelated sentence. They did not give Schultz Miranda warnings because they 

believed him to be a witness, not a suspect. During these interviews, Schultz 

made several incriminating statements, including admitting that he was present at 

the scene. The next day, the police again interviewed Schultz. This time, the 

police gave Schultz Miranda warnings before the interview.

¶3 Schultz moved to suppress the statements he made during these 

interviews, arguing that his Miranda rights were violated and that evidence 

obtained through subsequent search warrants for his residence, phone, and 

Facebook account should be excluded. The circuit court denied Schultz’s motion 

to suppress the November 10, 2017 statements and the evidence obtained from the 

search warrants, ruling that Schultz was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda

during the first interview and ruling that the search warrants were supported by 

 

1

 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
No. 2022AP1118-CR

3

probable cause. However, the court granted the motion to suppress statements 

Schultz made during the November 11, 2017 interview, determining that Schultz’s 

Miranda rights had been violated when detectives continued to question him after 

he requested an attorney. Following these rulings, Schultz pleaded guilty to a 

reduced charge of first-degree reckless homicide. 

¶4 Schultz first argues that the circuit court erred by requiring him to 

appear by telephone at the evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress on 

July 13, 2020. During this time, a Wisconsin Supreme Court order was in effect 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In re the Matter of Remote Hearings During the 

COVID-19 Pandemic (S. Ct. Order issued March 22, 2020; amended April 15, 

2020).2 The order provided that “all in-person proceedings in all appellate and 

circuit courts are hereby suspended until further order of this court.” Id. at 1. The 

order provided that exceptions would be made “if remote technology is not 

practicable or adequate to address” certain “[p]roceedings necessary to protect the 

constitutional rights of criminal defendants.” See id. at 2.

¶5 Schultz argues that his physical presence was necessary in the 

courtroom for the fair adjudication of his motion to suppress. He contends that his 

ability to communicate effectively with his attorney was significantly 

compromised by the remote appearance. However, the record and Schultz’s own 

admissions in his appellant brief belie these claims. Schultz was permitted to 

communicate confidentially with his attorney when he asked to do so. The circuit 

court provided them a private channel through which to speak. Schultz does not 

 

2

 https://www.wicourts.gov/news/docs/remotehearingsamended.pdf (last visited Sept. 9, 

2024).
No. 2022AP1118-CR

4

offer any specific examples or arguments to demonstrate that his remote 

appearance hindered his defense or affected the outcome of the hearing. Schultz 

has not shown that the remote technology the court used was not adequate to 

address the motion to suppress in a manner consistent with the protection of 

Schultz’s constitutional rights. Therefore, we reject his argument that the court 

erred in requiring him to appear remotely for the hearing.

¶6 Shultz next argues that his Miranda rights were violated during his 

November 10, 2017 interview with law enforcement while he was incarcerated at 

the Fond du Lac County Jail on unrelated charges. Schultz contends that he was 

effectively “in custody” during the interview and, as such, should have been 

provided with Miranda warnings prior to any questioning. He argues that being 

questioned about a homicide in the jail environment would lead any reasonable 

person to believe they were not free to terminate the conversation and leave. 

¶7 In determining whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes, 

courts apply an objective test: whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a 

reasonable person would have felt they were not free to terminate the interrogation 

and leave. State v. Bartelt, 2018 WI 16, ¶31, 379 Wis. 2d 588, 906 N.W.2d 684. 

The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that “custody” for Miranda 

purposes is not defined by mere physical incarceration but by whether the 

interrogation environment presents inherently coercive pressures. Howes v. 

Fields, 565 U.S. 499, 508-09 (2012). We will uphold the factual findings made by 

the circuit court unless they are clearly erroneous but the ultimate question of 

whether a defendant was in custody for the purposes of Miranda, based on the 

facts, is a question of law that we review independently. See State v. Dobbs, 2020 

WI 64, ¶28, 392 Wis. 2d 505, 945 N.W.2d 609. 
No. 2022AP1118-CR

5

¶8 While it is undisputed that Schultz was in jail at the time of the 

interview, case law teaches that incarceration alone does not automatically mean 

that a person is in custody for purposes of Miranda. The critical inquiry is 

whether a reasonable person in Schultz’s position would have felt free to terminate 

the interview and leave. After the evidentiary hearings on the suppression motion, 

the circuit court made the following factual findings with regard to the 

November 10, 2017 interview. The court found that the officers did not escort 

Schultz down to the conference room. He was simply asked or told to go there. 

The conference room door was not locked and Schultz was not physically 

restrained. The police initially thought Schultz was a potential witness, not a 

suspect, and the questions they asked him were the type of questions the police 

would ask a witness, not a suspect. Based on the eighteen minute recording of the 

interview, which was played during the hearing, the court characterized the tone of 

the interview as not threatening or angry, and noted that the officers were not 

speaking loudly. Based on the court’s factual findings—which indicate a noncoercive environment and lack of physical restraint—and the legal standards in 

Howes and Bartelt, we conclude that the police questioning of Schultz on 

November 10 did not present the inherently coercive pressures that would 

necessitate Miranda warnings. As such, Schultz was not in custody for Miranda

purposes during the November 10 interview, and the court properly denied his 

motion to suppress the evidence that was obtained based on the interview.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.
No. 2022AP1118-CR

6