Wisconsin
How Berghuis v. Thompkins applies in Wisconsin: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure.
Wisconsin adheres to the principles established in Berghuis v. Thompkins, emphasizing that a suspect must unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent to trigger protections under Miranda. The state courts often stress the necessity for a clear and affirmative expression of the desire to cease questioning.
Under Wisconsin law, a suspect’s invocation of their right to silence must be clear and unambiguous, and law enforcement is not required to stop questioning until the suspect expressly demonstrates the desire to do so.
The court held that equivocal statements made during interrogation do not suffice to invoke the right to silence.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to remain silent is not activated unless the suspect clearly expresses their intention to invoke it.
The court ruled that a suspect's silence in response to questions does not constitute an invocation of the right to remain silent.
Wisconsin's application of the principles from Berghuis v. Thompkins aligns closely with the federal standard, which also requires an unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. However, Wisconsin jurisprudence may emphasize the necessity for clarity more stringently than some federal interpretations.
Questions regarding the invocation of Miranda rights and the clarity needed to invoke the right to remain silent are often tested in the Wisconsin bar exam.