00-1680 State v. Jennings

Listen to this article

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Davis means that Wentela and [State v.] Walkowiak, [183 Wis.2d 478 (1994] are no longer valid as a matter of Fifth Amendment law, and we therefore overrule them. We also decline, in this instance, to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution’s right against self-incrimination more broadly than the federal constitutional right.”

Accordingly, on this question certified to us by the court of appeals, we reverse the circuit court’s suppression order.

DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J., with whom Bablitch and Bradley, JJ., join. “I dissent for three reasons: The majority opinion contravenes concepts of federalism and state sovereignty; Wisconsin’s rule requiring law enforcement officers to clarify a suspect’s equivocal request for an attorney is the prudent rule; and Wisconsin constitutional jurisprudence supports interpreting the Wisconsin Constitution as requiring law enforcement officers to clarify a suspect’s equivocal request for an attorney. I cannot join an opinion that undermines the interests of law enforcement to safeguard confessions from suppression by a court. I cannot join an opinion that jeopardizes the right of a suspect to an attorney and a full and fair trial.

And I cannot join an opinion that ignores more than 140 years of Wisconsin law.”

Appealed from Rock Cty. Cir. Ct., Roethe, J.; Sykes, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Gregory M. Weber, James E. Doyle, Madison

For Respondent: Margaret A. Maroney, Madison