## Facts

- A 14-year-old eighth grader was taken into custody in connection with an armed street robbery.
- Detectives interrogated him for several hours at a police station.
- The interrogation was not electronically recorded; the only record was a typed statement prepared by police and signed by the juvenile.
- The juvenile asserted he repeatedly asked to call his mother, did not fully understand the Miranda warnings, and was pressured through intimidation and deception.
- The detectives testified Miranda warnings were given and waived, the juvenile did not request his mother or to stop questioning, and the statement was voluntary.
- The juvenile court credited the detectives, denied suppression, and adjudicated the juvenile delinquent largely based on the confession; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the State proved the juvenile’s confession was voluntary for due process purposes.
2. Whether custodial interrogations of juveniles in places of detention should be electronically recorded as a judicially imposed procedural requirement.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the delinquency adjudication.
- The court held the confession was involuntary under the totality of the circumstances and should have been suppressed.
- The court remanded for further proceedings without the confession.
- Exercising supervisory authority, the court adopted a prospective rule requiring electronic recording of custodial interrogations of juveniles in places of detention when feasible, with limited exceptions; failure to record could support exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntariness is assessed under the totality of the circumstances, including age, education, intelligence, experience, understanding and waiver of Miranda rights, interrogation length and conditions, and police methods (including threats, promises, or deception).
- Juvenile confessions require special caution because youths are less able to understand rights and more susceptible to pressure; isolation from a parent or lawyer is a significant factor in assessing voluntariness.
- The State bears the burden to prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.
- As a non-constitutional rule of judicial administration, Wisconsin requires prospective electronic recording of juvenile custodial interrogations in places of detention when feasible; absent recording, a juvenile’s statement may be treated as inadmissible unless the State shows a recognized exception.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the State did not carry its burden to show the 14-year-old’s stationhouse confession was a product of free choice under due process standards, reversed the delinquency adjudication, and imposed a forward-looking supervisory rule favoring exclusion when juvenile custodial interrogations in detention settings are not electronically recorded without an applicable exception.


In re Interest of Jerrell C.J., 283 Wis. 2d 145, 699 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2005)