"In brief" posts are shorter looks at interesting appellate filings. There are simply too many worthy cases to cover in full and these posts let me cover a few more. They lift a lot from the briefs themselves (expressing gratitude to lawyers who are decent writers). Those lifted parts are indented. My additions / summaries are not.
Please remember — these are generally taken from briefs and present the arguments of the parties appealing. They do not necessarily present the full story.
Petition for Review
Case no: 2023AP396
Case name: State v Logan T. Kruckenberg Anderson
Court of Appeals District: IV
Panel: JoAnne Kloppenburg, Brian Blanchard, Chris Taylor
Opinion author: Taylor
PFR Filing attorney: Lisa Kumfer
Title: Assistant Attorney General
Law firm / agency: Wisconsin Department of Justice
Circuit Court: Green County
Judge: Thomas Vale
The Supreme Court should reverse a holding that some of the statements a 16-year-old boy made during questioning about the disappearance of his infant son were involuntary and should be suppressed, the state said in a petition for review.
"The question is whether these accepted (interview) techniques become coercive if the defendant is under 18," Assistant Attorney General Lisa Kumfer wrote. (Parentheses added.)
The District IV Court of Appeals ruling that some of defendant Logan Kruckenberg's statements should be suppressed leaves law enforcement with "no clear direction on what is and is not permissible when interviewing young people — particularly one like Kruckenberg who was nearly 17— and both law enforcement and lower courts will be bound to somehow follow both this opinion and the substantial body of case law seemingly pointing in the opposite direction on how to resolve this question," Kumfer said.
Kruckenberg was questioned several times after the baby was reported missing by Mark P., Lauren P.'s father. Lauren was Kruckenberg's girlfriend and the mother of the baby, Heather. Mark told Green County Deputy Derek Whitcomb that Kruckenberg had taken the baby, born four days earlier, and "the baby had not been seen since."
Kruckenberg was interviewed several times. He first said he had given the baby to “Tyler,” a man whom Kruckenberg said he had met through SnapChat, and whose last name he did not know. Kruckenberg said he met Tyler at a park in Albany a few hours after the baby’s birth and gave him $60 to take her to an adoption agency in Madison.
At the second interview, about eight hours later, Kruckenberg said he already told the police everything he knew.
The third interview, on Jan. 10, was at the Brodhead Police Department and included FBI Special Agent Brian Baker and state Department of Justice (DOJ) Division of Criminal Investigation Agent James Pertzborn. An adult, Delores, was also present, at Kruckenberg's request, Kumfer said. Kruckenberg lived with Delores and her family during the week.
Kruckenberg was not restrained and Pertzborn told him he was not under arrest and could leave at any time. Kruckenberg described Tyler and their relationship.
Tyler was mixed race and about 23 to 24 years old, heavyset, lived in Brodhead with his mixed-race girlfriend, drove a Chevy Equinox, and that they had played darts and pool together about 18 times. Delores looked incredulous, and Pertzborn asked Delores if she’d ever heard of Tyler; she said no.
Both Pertzborn and Delores told Kruckenberg to be truthful or they could not help him. Pertzborn said they knew Kruckenberg was lying.
Kruckenberg, about 20 minutes after questioning began, asked if he could speak to Pertzborn alone.
Pertzborn gave Kruckenberg another water and took Kruckenberg’s hand, told him he was going to help him through this and he knew Kruckenberg was scared, but they would “just work on fixing it from here.” Kruckenberg asked what was going to happen, and Pertzborn said he didn’t know, but he’d be able to write a report saying Kruckenberg was apologetic. Pertzborn then said “[w]e need to do a
couple things. We need to bury, give that precious child of yours, a proper burial.”
Kruckenberg eventually said he and a friend, "Alex," buried Heather in the snow in an Albany park.
Kruckenberg said when the baby arrived, they “just needed it out of our lives.” He put the baby in a backpack and started walking when he saw Alex. He asked Alex to drive him to Madison to surrender the baby, but Alex refused and suggested Kruckenberg abandon her in the woods. Kruckenberg said he then walked into the woods, took Heather out of the backpack and laid her in a hollow log, and she began to cry. He said he covered her with snow and left, knowing she would die.
Kruckenberg agreed to take authorities to the site, where they found Heather's body. She had been shot twice in the head.
Law enforcement took him back to the Albany Police Department and told Kruckenberg again that he was not under arrest. Kruckenberg admitted everything he said about Tyler was a lie. Kruckenberg was arrested about 40 minutes later.
The next day, Kruckenberg admitted stealing the gun from Delores' house and that he shot Heather.
The Court of Appeals upheld the suppression of Kruckenberg's statements made after Pertzborn's Jan. 10 "proper burial," comment because state did not show they "were voluntary under constitutional standards." The ruling applied also applied to Kruckenberg's statements at the Albany woods and later at the Albany Police Department.
"We conclude that, at the point of Pertzborn’s 'proper burial' comment, the cumulative techniques used by Pertzborn to elicit Kruckenberg’s incriminating statements were coercive. We make this determination in the context of Kruckenberg’s personal characteristics that made him more susceptible to police pressure, including his age," Appellate Judge Chris Taylor wrote for the panel.
The court erred, the state's petition argued.
Most juveniles have limited experience with law enforcement, and he did not tell Agent Pertzborn that he was fatigued, hungry, or sick. He was alert and talkative. His comments to other officers were nearly eight hours earlier, and in the interim he had gone home and could have rested or eaten. Kruckenberg unsurprisingly became teary, but the court of appeals pointed to no case suggesting that officers are coercive if they question a tearful suspect.
An interviewer telling someone they don’t believe an unbelievable story, appealing to their morality, generic offers of help, and telling the suspect to tell the truth are all “tactics that courts commonly accept,” including when a juvenile is being questioned. It is not clear under this opinion what police may do when questioning a juvenile. The opinion holds that five minutes of reasonably, calmly imploring a 16-year-old who is telling an extremely unbelievable story to tell the truth is coercion.
The court of appeals’ decision, at its base, turns on the premise that these techniques became coercive in the context of questioning a juvenile. But this Court has previously held that questioning similar to the questioning here does not amount to “coercion,” even when the suspect is a juvenile.
Comments