Two standards for involuntary statements.

Byline: Tony Anderson

The state Supreme Court has identified two standards when determining whether allegedly involuntary statements should be suppressed.

In doing so, the Supreme Court reversed a court of appeals decision in the case of a 47-year-old man who had left the state with a teenage girl and who eventually fathered a child by her. The court of appeals had ruled that the same standard applied when determining whether a witness's statements were involuntary and should be suppressed as applied when reviewing a defendant's statements.

In its April 25 decision, the Supreme Court determined that a witness's statements required a greater showing of misconduct by police than a defendant's own statements before they could be suppressed. The 6-1 decision written by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley stated that police conduct must be "egregious" before a witness' statements could be suppressed.

Bradley wrote: "We conclude that the standards are different and that when a defendant seeks to suppress an allegedly involuntary witness statement, the coercive police misconduct at issue must be egregious such that it produces statements that are unreliable as a matter of law."

Justice William A. Bablitch dissented.

Man and Teen Leave State

The case, State v. Samuel, involved charges brought against Stanley A. Samuel, 47, for his involvement with teenager Tisha L. A jury convicted Samuel on charges of sexual assault, abduction and interference with custody.

In January 1996, Samuel and Tisha L., who was a minor at the time, went from Oshkosh to Milwaukee where they stayed for a week before leaving the state, according to court records. In March 1997, after traveling through several states, they were taken into custody and brought back to Wisconsin. Tisha was pregnant and delivered on March 10.

Two days later, a hearing was held to determine placement for Tisha. After the hearing where Tisha was placed with her father, a conference was held to determine where her baby should be placed. During the conference, Tisha, who was represented by legal counsel, was told she should give police a statement about what had happened during the previous year. Following the conference, Tisha was allowed to go home, but her baby was placed in temporary foster care.

The following day, Tisha told police that she and Samuel had been sexually active before they left the state. At that time, Tisha was under the age of 16. The next day, a hearing was held and Tisha's baby was...