Court Opinion

ID: 9737605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:29:50.748404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:00.100956
License: Public Domain

Robert W. Hansen, J.
(concurring). I agree with the route traveled and result reached in the court’s opinion in this case, but add this concurring footnote to comment that if I had been on the court at the time of the McKinley Case,1 I would have sought a far sharper differentiation between “psychological coercion” and “psychological pressure.” Coercion, properly defined, describes a force that coerces or compels. Pressure, broadly defined, includes any influence that persuades or impels. The distinction between the two ought not be blurred if the test is to be the voluntariness of admissions made. It is not a police responsibility to protect or insulate a guilty person from every prompting of his own conscience.

 McKinley v. State (1967), 37 Wis. 2d 26, 154 N. W. 2d 344.