Court Opinion

ID: 9724116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:45:13.997521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:56.055351
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting in part and concurring in part). In accordance with the views I express today in Walkowiak v. State, 183 Wis. 2d 478, 491, 515 N.W.2d 847 (1994), I write separately to state that I agree with the circuit court that the defendant's statements should be suppressed. The waiver of rights signed by the defendant in this case is invalid as a matter of law.
Circuit court judge Gary Langhoff explained the circuit court's position and mine very well as follows:
"... in a case such as this, an appropriate response to the question, "Do you think I need a lawyer," would be to inform the suspect that the decision is one for him or her to make ..., and then to ask for a decision .... Detective Sorenson's response to Thiel's equivocal expression of interest in counsel was insufficient to protect Thiel's right to counsel under Edwards. Detective Sorenson began to clarify the defendant's equivocal response by informing him that the decision was solely the defendant's to make. After imparting this information to the defendant, Sorenson failed to ask defendant Thiel what his decision was. Detective Sorenson merely waited for Thiel to sign the waiver form. The detective neglected to clarify Thiel's ambiguous request for counsel. Mere signing of a waiver statement after a request for counsel has been made is not a valid waiver . . (emphasis in original; citations omitted). Memorandum Decision, p. 13.