2010AP1898-CR State v. Bean

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Right to remain silent

Interrogation on four occasions over the course of 60 hours did not violate the defendant’s right to remain silent, although he invoked that right during the third interrogation.

“[T]here is no evidence ‘to support a finding that little was done to assure [Bean] that his right to silence would not be scrupulously honored or that other improper tactics were used that could have arguably coerced [Bean] into talking.’ See id. During the sixty hours that elapsed between his arrest and confession, Bean was interrogated three times for a mere two hours total. On each occasion he was aware of the Miranda warnings. On those occasions he wished to speak to police, Bean properly waived those warnings. On the third occasion, when he invoked his right to remain silent, Detective Borman immediately concluded the interrogation, asking no more questions. Police then waited nineteen and one-half hours, permitting Bean a full night’s sleep, before attempting to speak with him again, at which time a different detective resumed questioning. Moreover, the tone of the fourth interrogation was ‘polite’ and Detective Spano ‘was anything but threatening.’ In short, Bean’s right to remain silent was scrupulously honored; there is simply no evidence in the record that the police made any attempt to induce Bean not to invoke his right to silence or attempted to coerce him to talk. See Turner, 136 Wis. 2d at 359.”

“We also reject Bean’s suggestion that Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010), should guide our decision. Shatzer held that the Edwards rule—prohibiting police from interrogating a suspect after the suspect invokes his right to counsel until counsel has been made available or unless the suspect reinitiates communications, see Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981)—does not apply when a suspect has been released from custody for fourteen days, Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. at 1221, 1223. In other words, Shatzer comments upon the right to counsel, not the right to silence, and provides no authority for the resolution of this issue.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP1898-CR State v. Bean

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

Attorneys: For Appellant: Obernberger, Scott D., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Weber, Gregory M., Madison

Full Text