Criminal Procedure — Miranda warnings

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — Miranda warnings

Brandon D Andre Burnside appeals a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first-degree intentional homicide while using a dangerous weapon, and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Burnside argues that: (1) the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress statements he made before police told him his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); (2) the police used unreliable procedures during the line-ups where witnesses identified him as the person who shot and killed the victim, Bryan Drake; (3) the trial court should not have allowed the jury to see the autopsy photographs; (4) his lawyer gave him constitutionally deficient representation; and (5) the trial court should have granted his postconviction motion asking for DNA tests on shirts found at the crime scene. We reverse on the first issue and therefore do not address the other issues because there must be a new trial, and the circuit court will be able to re-address those issues ab initio on remand. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP1293-CR State v. Burnside

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Cimpl, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Swartz, Melinda A., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; O’Neil, Aaron R., Madison