Motion to Suppress Denied – Miranda Warnings

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Daniel J. Rejholec

Case No.: 2020AP56-CR

Officials: Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Davis, JJ.

Focus: Motion to Suppress Denied – Miranda Warnings

Daniel J. Rejholec was informed of and waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), prior to his custodial interrogation. Rejholec repeatedly denied the accusations of his interrogator for the first half of his interrogation. One hour and seven minutes into the interrogation, the interrogator told Rejholec that he would be unable to testify at trial if he obtained a lawyer: “You’re not going to get a chance to tell your story. So the jury is never going to hear your side of the story.” The interrogator repeated this misrepresentation a few minutes later, telling Rejholec, “I’m trying to give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story before it’s too late to be able to do that.” Rejholec thereafter gave incriminating statements.

Rejholec moved to suppress his statements on both Miranda and State ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke, 27 Wis. 2d 244, 133 N.W.2d 753 (1965), grounds. An accused’s rights during a custodial interrogation can be violated in one of two ways: (1) the government fails to give or inadequately informs an accused of the warnings and advisements required by Miranda before or during a custodial interrogation, and the accused fails to waive his or her rights (a Miranda waiver challenge); or (2) the government utilizes improper pressures against the accused, causing his or her statements to be involuntary (a Goodchild statement challenge). See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 12, 18, 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996); State v. Jiles, 2003 WI 66, ¶¶25-26, 262 Wis. 2d 457, 663 N.W.2d 798. The circuit court found Rejholec’s statements voluntary but did not address his waiver.

Rejholec appeals from his judgment of conviction for repeated sexual assault of the same child, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 948.025(1)(e) (2019- 20), and from the circuit court’s order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse. We agree that Rejholec’s statement (Goodchild challenge) was voluntary, but we conclude that Rejholec’s waiver (Miranda challenge) became invalid when his interrogator misrepresented his right to silence, his right to counsel, and his right to testify at trial. Accordingly, we remand with directions that the circuit court grant Rejholec’s suppression motion.

We begin with a brief statement of facts, relate the pertinent portions of Rejholec’s custodial interrogation and suppression hearing, set forth our standard of review, address interrogation law, and analyze Rejholec’s Goodchild and Miranda challenges.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.