Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. Boughton

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

May 4, 2017

ADREAN L. SMITH, Petitioner,
v.
GARY BOUGHTON, Warden, Respondent.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          LYNN ADELMAN District Judge.

         In 2011, Adrean Smith pleaded guilty in Milwaukee County Circuit Court to three counts of armed robbery, as party to a crime, and one count of first degree reckless injury by use of a dangerous weapon. The circuit court sentenced Smith to a total of twenty-five years of initial confinement and ten years of extended supervision. In state court, Smith challenged the admissibility of statements he made to detectives during an interrogation on the ground that they had been obtained after he invoked his right to remain silent. The state courts, including the Wisconsin Supreme Court, rejected Smith's challenge to the statements' admissibility. See State v. Cummings, 357 Wis.2d 1 (2014).[1] Smith now seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

         I. BACKGROUND

         In November 2010, while investigating a series of armed robberies involving a stolen van, Detective Travis Guy conducted a custodial investigation of Adrean Smith. At the beginning of the interrogation, the detective advised Smith of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Smith agreed to waive those rights and make a statement. The statement was audio recorded. The parties have filed a disc containing three audio files. See ECF No. 9. Each file consists of a part of Guy's interrogation of Smith. (The parties have also filed a second disc that contains a single, lengthy audio recording. This recording is of a statement that Smith gave to a different detective following his interrogation by Guy.)

         In the first part of the interrogation, Detective Guy administers Smith his Miranda rights and Smith agrees to make a statement. Guy then questions Smith about the circumstances that resulted in his arrest, namely, Smith's running from police after an unmarked police vehicle pulled over a van he was driving. The van was stolen, and Guy asked Smith how he came to be driving a stolen van. Guy continued to question Smith about the stolen van and why he fled from the police for about 10 minutes, at which point they took a break.

         After the break, the following exchange took place:

Detective Guy: . . . [Y]ou said you was gonna talk about what you did but not anybody else. So I'll let you talk and I'll talk about these two things when you get done. Is that cool? Alright.
Smith: What [unintelligible] talk about?
Detective Guy: I dunno, you told me, you said that, uh, you was going to talk about . . . what was going on with you but you're not going to bring them-

         At this point, Smith said “the van” and began talking about having been caught in the stolen van:

Smith: The van was stolen. I didn't steal the van. It got stolen. But I got caught in the van. So, I'm gonna play my role. I'm a, you know what I'm sayin', whatever damage was done to the van, I'm do whatever I can to make sure that whoever owns the van gets their money back. Or-
Detective Guy: Was there damage to the van?
Smith: Yeah. There was damage to the ignition.
Detective Guy: Okay. But after that?
Smith: Nah, I didn't do it. But I'm the one who got caught drivin' it. [Unintelligible] might as well say.
Detective Guy: But you didn't know it was stolen when you drove it?
Smith: No, I ain't stole it. I ain't steal no van.
Detective Guy: [Unintelligible] you know who stole it. If the-
Smith: Yeah, I know it was stolen.
Detective Guy: Did you steal the van?
Smith: No, I didn't steal the van. And so, and that's what I'm saying . . . if anything, if I get out, I make sure that I take care of my responsibilities and I get my priorities straight, and start, which is, get a job, and pay whoever the van that was, the damage that was done. But, um, if anything, I would like to talk to the victims of the van, 'cause I want to tell them face-to-face, so they can see me and they can understand me more, or if they don't want to talk I would want them to show up at court. But, whatever happens, I just want them to know that I'll be responsible for payin' for the damages.

         Smith then asked the detective: “Okay, so what else do you want to know about the van?” When Guy said he just wanted to let Smith talk, Smith responded: “See, I don't know what to say. What I'm sayin' is I got caught in a van that's, that's pretty much all I can say.”

         At this point, Detective Guy then began talking about a robbery:

Detective Guy: . . . . Okay, alright, um, we're going to talk about this incident here, okay? This is Milwaukee Police Incident number 1032710-correction, 0130, which is an armed robbery, attempted home invasion. This happened on 7205 West Brentwood, okay? In this incident here, a woman was approached in her side drive, okay? On here it says that actors intentionally removed the victim's purse, okay? The victim pulled in a driveway, and one of the suspects was armed with a handgun, a silver and chrome handgun. And then the actors pointed the gun at the victim and took her purse. Now she was getting out of her vehicle-

         Here, Smith interrupted the detective, and the following exchange occurred:

Smith: See, I don't want to talk about, I don't want to talk about this. I don't ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.