Suppression of Evidence-Habeas Relief

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Johnny J. Jones v. Dan Cromwell

Case No.: 22-2084

Officials: Wood, Jackson-Akiwumi, and Lee, Circuit Judges.

Focus:  Suppression of Evidence-Habeas Relief

Following a hit-and-run incident on New Year’s Eve, resulting in one person’s death and another person being injured, Jones became a suspect and voluntarily turned himself in. During a recorded interrogation an officer read Jones his Miranda rights and thoroughly explained those rights. Jones inquired about the potential penalty he might face, but the officer declined to answer, repeatedly asking if Jones wanted to proceed with the questioning. The officer mentioned that there were witnesses placing Jones at the scene of the accident, and the police knew he fled because of fear. The officer also emphasized that Jones did the right thing by coming in and that it was crucial to have his side of the story on record. Feeling remorseful, Jones asked if he could get a “public pretender” immediately. Some laughter ensued, and a detective clarified that they are called public defenders, but due to the late hour (1:18 a.m.), it wasn’t feasible to arrange for one right then. The detective also mentioned that he believed the maximum punishment for the crime was 15 years. Subsequently, Jones disclosed what happened during the interrogation, implicating himself in the incident.

Jones moved to suppress the statements he made during the interrogation, but the Wisconsin trial court denied the motion, stating that Jones’s mention of a “public pretender” in a joking manner did not amount to a genuine request for legal counsel. A state appellate court upheld this decision, and the Seventh Circuit also affirmed the denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that Jones’s query about a lawyer, whether earnest or in jest, was too ambiguous to invoke his right to counsel under Supreme Court law.

Affirmed

Decided 07/28/23

Full Text