In Re Commitment of Lombard
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentShirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.
¶ 53. (dissenting). I conclude that ch. 980 individuals are entitled to be advised at the pre-petition examination (1) that they have the right to remain silent, and (2) that their silence will not be used against then at any stage of the ch. 980 commitment proceeding.
¶ 54. Lombard was advised that he had the right to remain silent (that is, that he had the right not to participate in the examination). He was not advised that his silence could not be used against him. I therefore conclude that the state psychologist should not have been allowed to testify to the conclusions he reached based…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Allen v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- State v. ArmstrongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. FenclWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.