Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2009AP3040-CR State v. Hampton

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 2, 2010//

2009AP3040-CR State v. Hampton

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 2, 2010//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Right to counsel

Where a defendant initiated conversation after invoking his right to counsel, his statements are admissible.
“Here, after Hampton requested to speak with an attorney, the detectives scrupulously respected that request and began to leave. Hampton then asked the detectives if they were leaving. Detective Heier answered appropriately, explaining to Hampton that he had a right to speak with counsel and because he invoked that right the detectives were going to end their questioning, stating: ‘Yeah. If you wanna talk to a lawyer, we’re not going to talk to you…. You’re in charge…. If you want a lawyer, I respect that and I’ll honor that.’ Hampton later told the detectives, ‘I really do want to talk to you guys…. I just need some time.'”
“Under either test set forth in Bradshaw, the culmination of Hampton’s statements with detectives from ‘I just don’t want you guys to leave right now’ and ending with ‘I really do want to talk to you guys,’ demonstrates an initiation of communication with the detectives. It is reasonable to conclude that Hampton wished to continue talking about the circumstances surrounding Stovall’s death, as that had been the focus of his conversation with the detectives for several hours. Detectives honored Hampton’s request for a thirty to forty minute break to read the Bible and pray before continuing to speak with detectives, and Detective Heier reread Hampton his Miranda rights before continuing to interrogate him an hour later. At that time, Hampton acknowledged that he understood his rights and expressly waived them before talking with the detectives.”

“Therefore, although Hampton did ask to speak with a lawyer, we conclude that detectives honored that request until Hampton initiated further communication with the detectives and Hampton again waived his Miranda rights.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP3040-CR State v. Hampton

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Ashley, J., Brennan, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Holzman, Michael S., Waukesha; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Freimuth, James M., Madison

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests