Free Newsletter
00-2800-CR State v. Gipson
Minnesota Lawyer//July 30, 2001//
Listen to this articleThe State appeals from a pretrial order suppressing the statements given to a police officer in a postpolygraph interview. The trial court ruled that the statements given by Anthony L. Gipson in the interview were so closely related to the actual polygraph examination that it should be considered one event, thus rendering the statements inadmissible. The State claims that the trial court erred when it granted the motion to suppress because the statements were admissible under postpolygraph interview law.
Because the postpolygraph statements were admissible, we reverse.
This opinion will not be published.
Dist I, Milwaukee County, Madden, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys:
For Appellant: David J. Becker, Madison; Lovell Johnson Jr., Milwaukee
For Respondent: Calvin R. Malone, Milwaukee
Related Content
Top News
- Federal court rules brokerage firm breached 1994 contract
- Court denies revocation of adoption
- UnitedHealth suit alleges faulty AI led to denied claims
- Judge asked to block part of a North Dakota abortion law
- Court dismisses bias, retaliation lawsuit
- Joint-employer rule set to roil workplace — once again
- 8th Circuit rules private plaintiffs can’t sue under Voting Rights Act
- Commentary: Right-to-repair fight centers on data transmitted by newer cars
Expert Testimony
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Risky business and tips for managing the risk
- Perspectives: JFK assassination: 60 years of litigation here
- Perspectives: Lincoln’s memorable address recalls impact here
- The Unfrazzled Lawyer: Five benefits of becoming an unfrazzled lawyer
