| Venue: |
WI SC
|
|
| Facts: |
Tisha L, a minor, ends up pregnant. She gets interroated a fair
amount, and says the father is Samuel. |
|
| Posture: |
Motion to suppress Tisha's statements is denied. On the stand, she
contradicts her written statement. Convicted at trial.
Ct. App. reverses. State appeals. |
|
| Issue: |
Does the same standard apply when suppressing the involuntary statement
of a witnessa as for an involuntary statement of a defendant? |
|
| Holding: |
No. Affirmed. |
|
| Rule: |
In order to suppress the involuntary statement of a witness, the court
must find that police tactics were so egregious as to produce a
statement that is unreliable as a matter of law. |
|
| Reasoning: |
The police must obey the law while enforcing the law. The products
of coercion are less likely to be reliable than voluntary
statements. But the proper means of dealing with witness statements
is generally cross-examination. In the case of a witness's statement,
the defendant's right against self-incrimination is not at issue.
At the same time, though, statements derived by means that induce
lying have no place in our system of justice. There are 6 factors
to examine:
- Whether the witness was coached
- Whether the investigator's questions were blatantly tailored
to extract a particular answer
- Whether the authorities made a threat that would be unlawful
if carried out
- Whether the witness was given an express and unlawful quid
pro quo
- Whether the state had a separate legitimate purpose for
its conduct
- Whether the witness was represented by counsel at the time of
the coercion
So, you weigh those, and then you can decide.
|
|
| Dicta: |
Bablich, dissenting: the circuit court drew its conclusion without
the benefit of the standard articulated here; we should remand
for them to weigh the facts. |
|