You can now subscribe to updates from Appealing Wisconsin! Click on the "Subscribe" tab at the top of the page to receive email updates when a new blog post is published!
A judge erred when he determined that a youth's tone in requesting to go to his jail pod showed that it was not a "true request," the state Court of Appeals ruled last week.
Latu Hampton, then 17, asked to be returned to the pod while being questioned by police about a shooting at a park in Madison, the three-judge panel for the District IV Court of Appeals ruled last week.
The panel included Appellate Judges JoAnne Kloppenburg, Rachel Graham, and Jennifer Nashold.
"We conclude that Hampton unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent during the interrogation," the per curiam decision said. "Accordingly, the continued police interrogation violated Hampton’s right against compelled self-incrimination, and a motion to suppress on that basis would have succeeded."
The panel sent the case back to Circuit Court if Circuit for a hearing to determine whether Judge Stephen Ehlke's error prompted Hampton to take a plea rather than go to trial.
Hampton pleaded guilty to first-degree reckless injury and Ehlke sentenced him to seven years of incarceration and eight years of extended supervision, according to online court records.
Hampton filed a postconviction motion alleging his trial lawyer was ineffective for not trying to get Hampton's in-custody statements to police suppressed.
"Specifically, he argued that his statements were made without a valid waiver of his Miranda rights and also that his confession was involuntary, in part because, during the interview, he twice asked to return to his pod at the jail and the police failed to honor his requests," the panel said.
Ehlke denied the motion, finding the suppression motion would have been denied.
At the beginning of Hampton's interrogation, the appeals panel said, a detective read Hampton his Miranda rights and Hampton agreed to talk to the detective and a police officer who also was present.
Hampton answered some questions and asked some others. The police officer told him, “You’re facing the most serious charge, but there are a lot of other people coming in behind you.”
At that point, Hampton looked down with his hand on his head, paused for a moment, and then said quietly, “Alright. Well, can I go back to my pod now?” The detective responded, “Um, if you want. Otherwise … there’s some other clarifying questions that I had but if … you don’t want to talk anymore.” ...
The detective and Hampton exchanged a few more questions.
The detective said, “Well, like some stuff about … on the map and stuff like that, we didn’t get a chance to point that out, I was just—” at which point Hampton looked down at the map on the table in front of him with his hand on his head and shook his head “no,” and the detective interrupted himself to ask, “You don’t want to do that?” Hampton, still looking down with his hand on his head and shaking his head “no,” mumbled, “I just want to go back to my pod.” The detective responded, “Okay. That’s fine.”
The officers, however, did not take Hampton to his pod. They talked, instead, about the difference between the penalties for an accidental shooting and a deliberate homicide.
"Attempted homicide is a whole lot more years,” the officer said.
The interrogation continued, and Hampton made incriminating statements.
In denying the motion to suppress, Ehlke found that Hampton did not make a "true request" to end the questioning, the panel said. Ehlke said:
Mr. Hampton contends he asked to go back to his pod and that he was essentially prevented from doing so. Thus, so the argument goes, he didn’t intentionally relinquish his right to counsel and he didn’t voluntarily continue speaking to the officer. Viewing the tape, I disagree. Mr. Hampton asked -- well, when he asked whether he can return to his pod, it was in a tone which suggested he was musing about the possibility.
He didn’t defiantly say he wanted to return to his pod, stand up and attempt to leave. Rather, he requests to return in an almost nonchalant manner and makes no effort to leave. The detective, in response to Mr. Hampton’s query about returning to his pod says,b “If you want, I have some clarifying questions.” When informed that the detective didn’t intend to return some other time to speak with Mr. Hampton, Mr. Hampton asks if it was an accident, what would the charges be. Mr. Hampton then says he doesn’t want to just say it was self-defense because that’s what the police were suggesting.
Although I can’t read Mr. Hampton’s mind, what appears to be happening is he’s trying to figure out how best to state what happened. His request to return to the pod was not a true request. And even if it was, it was only momentary and he quickly changed his mind and decided to stay. At no time did the officers prevent him from leaving or actively dissuade him from leaving.
The state, on appeal, argued that Hampton did not clearly indicate that he did not want to continue talking to police, but the appellate panel disagreed.
Hampton unequivocally said that he wanted to end the questioning. ... Hampton shook his head no when asked if he wished to answer additional questions, and said, “I just want to go back to my pod.” That Hampton did not elaborate ... does not render his statement less unequivocal.
The state also contended that Hampton's statement was ambiguous because he asked when police would come back to talk to him when the police officer told him the officer and detective needed to hear what Hampton was thinking when he shot the victim. The panel tossed that argument, too.
The state cites no legal authority supporting its reliance on what occurred after Hampton invoked his right to remain silent. As set forth above, after Hampton stated that he did not want to answer any more questions, the officers continued to attempt to elicit information from him. Hampton’s subsequent question about when the officers would return to speak with him did not render his prior invocation of his right to remain silent ambiguous.
Comments