In the Interest of Jerrell, 2005 WI 105 (Wis. 7/7/2005)
| Citation | 2005 WI 105 |
| Decision Date | 07 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2002AP3423.,2002AP3423. |
| Parties | In the Interest of Jerrell C.J., a person Under the Age of 17: State of Wisconsin, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Jerrell C.J., Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, Francis T. Wasielewski, Judge.
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Reversed. 2004 WI App 9 Reported at: 269 Wis. 2d 442, 674 N.W.2d 607 (Ct. App. 2003-Published)
For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by Eileen A. Hirsch, assistant state public defender.
For the petitioner-respondent the cause was argued by Gregory M. Weber, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Steven A. Drizin, Chicago, IL, on behalf of the Children and Family Justice Center Northwestern University School of Law; Marygold S. Melli, Professor Emerita, Madison, on behalf of the University of Wisconsin Law School; and Marsha L. Levick, Philadelphia, PA, on behalf of the Juvenile Law Center.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Keith A. Findley and John A. Pray, Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin Innocence Project of the Frank J. Remington Center-University of Wisconsin Law School; Barry C. Scheck, Peter Neufeld, Madeline deLone, New York, NY, on behalf of the Innocence Project of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law-Yeshiva University; Julie Jonas, St. Paul, MN, on behalf of the Innocence Project of Minnesota-Hamline University School of Law; Bill Allison, Austin, TX, on behalf of the Innocence Clinic and Criminal Defense Clinic-University of Texas School of Law; Jacqueline McMurtrie, Seattle, WA, on behalf of the Innocence Project NW Clinic-University of Washington School of Law; Theresa A. Newman, Durham, NC, on behalf of the Center on Actual Innocence; Emily Maw, New Orleans, LA, on behalf of the Innocence Project New Orleans; Binny Miller, Washington, D.C., on behalf of the Criminal Justice Clinic-American University, Washington College of Law; Richard Leo, Irvine, CA, on behalf of the Department of Criminology, Law and Society-University of California-Irvine; Dr. Robert Schehr, Flagstaff, AZ, on behalf of the Northern Arizona Justice Project and Department of Criminal Justice-Northern Arizona State University; Andre Moenssens, Columbia City, IN, on behalf of the University of Missouri-Kansas City; the Center on Wrongful Convictions-Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, IL; the Innocence Project of the National Capital Region-American University-Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C.; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Washington, D.C.; and the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Monona.
¶ 1 The petitioner, Jerrell C.J., seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals affirming a delinquency adjudication and the denial of a postdisposition motion.1 Jerrell was adjudged delinquent for the commission of armed robbery, party to a crime.
¶ 2 This case presents three distinct but related issues. First, Jerrell contends that his written confession to the police was involuntary. Second, he asks this court to adopt a per se rule, excluding in-custody admissions from any child under the age of 16 who has not been given the opportunity to consult with a parent or interested adult. Third, he asks this court to adopt a rule requiring police to electronically record all juvenile interrogations.2
¶ 3 We agree with Jerrell that his written confession to the police was involuntary under the totality of the circumstances. However, we decline to adopt his proposed per se rule regarding consultation with a parent or interested adult. Finally, we exercise our supervisory power to require that all custodial interrogations of juveniles in future cases be electronically recorded where feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention.3 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
¶ 4 Shortly after midnight on Saturday, May 26, 2001, three young men robbed a McDonald's restaurant in Milwaukee. Each was wearing a ski mask and holding a gun. Two of the men went to the kitchen and ordered employees to lie down on the floor. The third went to the office, where the manager put $3590 in the robber's bag. All three men then left.
¶ 5 One person, an employee suspected of unlocking the door for the men, was detained by police later that morning. Three others were detained and arrested as suspects on Sunday evening. On Monday morning, at approximately 6:20 a.m., 14-year-old Jerrell was arrested at his home. He was taken to the police station, booked, and placed in an interrogation room.
¶ 6 In the interrogation room, Jerrell was handcuffed to a wall and left alone for approximately two hours. At 9:00 a.m., Police Detectives Ralph Spano and Kurt Sutter entered the interrogation room. The detectives introduced themselves, removed Jerrell's handcuffs, and asked him some background questions. Jerrell stated that he was 14 years old and in eighth grade. He also provided the names, addresses, and phone numbers of his parents and siblings.
¶ 7 At 9:10 a.m., Detective Spano advised Jerrell of his Miranda rights.4 The detectives then began to question Jerrell about the armed robbery at McDonald's. Jerrell denied his involvement. The detectives challenged this denial and encouraged Jerrell to be "truthful and honest" and "start standing up for what he did." Jerrell again denied his involvement. The detectives again challenged this denial.
¶ 8 At times in this exchange, Detective Spano raised his voice. He later explained, Jerrell described the "raised voice," stating, Jerrell indicated that it made him feel "kind of frightened."
¶ 9 During the questioning, Jerrell was afforded food and bathroom breaks. He was kept in the interrogation room until lunchtime. At lunch, he was placed in a bullpen cell for about 20 minutes where he ate. The questioning resumed about 12:30 p.m. In the interrogation room, Detective Spano said Jerrell "started opening up about his involvement and everybody else's" somewhere between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m.
¶ 10 It is undisputed that "several times" during the interrogation, Jerrell asked "if he could make a phone call to his mother or father."5 Each time Detective Spano said "no." Detective Spano later testified that he "never" in 12 years allowed a juvenile to contact parents during interrogation because it could stop the flow or jeopardize it altogether. He explained:
If I don't have any control about what he can say over the phone or what he can do when he has got the phone in his hand, I don't think it is prudent or proper to let him do that.
¶ 11 At 2:40 p.m., over five-and-a-half hours after interrogation began, and eight hours after he was taken into custody, Jerrell signed a statement prepared by Detective Spano. In it, he admitted his involvement in the McDonald's robbery.
¶ 12 Jerrell subsequently moved to suppress his written confession, claiming that it was involuntary, unreliable, and a product of coercion. The circuit court denied the motion. Jerrell was then tried with a co-defendant and adjudged delinquent for committing armed robbery, party to a crime.
¶ 13 After his adjudication, Jerrell filed a postdisposition motion seeking a new trial on the basis that his confession was unreliable, untrustworthy, and involuntary. The motion focused on inconsistencies between Jerrell's statement and that of eyewitnesses and other participants. Again, the circuit court denied the motion. It found the discrepancies between Jerrell's statement and the other evidence were not material. Additionally, it concluded that the statement, under the totality of the circumstances, was voluntary.
¶ 14 On appeal, Jerrell maintained that his confession was involuntary. He asserted that the police officers should have granted one of his several requests to call his parents, which were all made prior to the signing of the written statement. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court, concluding that it did not err in denying Jerrell's motion to suppress the written statement. In doing so, however, the court of appeals cautioned that "a juvenile's request for parental contact should not be ignored." State v. Jerrell C.J., 2004 WI App 9, ¶1, 269 Wis. 2d 442, 674 N.W.2d 607 (Ct. App. 2003).
¶ 15 Finally, the court of appeals wrote separately to express its grave concern with the issue of false confessions made by juveniles during custodial interrogation. Id., ¶¶24-32. Its opinion concludes with a call for action:
It is this court's opinion that it is time for Wisconsin to tackle the false confession issue. We need to take appropriate action so that the youth of our state are protected from confessing to crimes they did not commit. We need to find safeguards that will balance necessary police interrogation techniques to ferret out the guilty against the need to offer adequate constitutional protections to the innocent.
¶ 16 In reviewing the voluntariness of a statement, we examine the application of constitutional principles to historical facts. State v. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, ¶34, 261 Wis. 2d 294, 661 N.W.2d 407. We defer to the circuit court's findings regarding the factual circumstances surrounding the statement. Id. (citing Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 287 (1991); State v. Clappes, 136 Wis. 2d 222, 235, 401 N.W.2d 759 (1987)). However, the application of constitutional principles to those facts presents a question of law subject to independent appellate review. Id.
¶ 17 The first issue presented for our review is whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial