State v. Daniel J. Rejholec, 963 N.W.2d 121

Defendant Daniel J. Rejholec was Mirandized, waived, and subjected to a 1 hour 36 minute custodial interrogation by Detective Eric Edson regarding sexual assaults on a 14‑year‑old.
During the interview Edson repeatedly lied (e.g., claimed DNA/swabs existed) and used Reid‑style tactics (victim‑blaming, empathy, fabricated evidence).
At 1:07 into the interview Edson told Rejholec that if he got a lawyer or invoked silence he "won’t get a chance to tell [his] story" and the jury would never hear his side; shortly after Rejholec made incriminating statements.
The circuit court found Rejholec’s statements voluntary (Goodchild) but did not rule on whether his Miranda waiver remained valid after the detective’s statements; Rejholec pled no contest and appealed the suppression denial.
The court of appeals concluded the post‑1:07 statements must be suppressed because the detective’s “now‑or‑never” misrepresentations about the right to silence, counsel, and to testify invalidated Rejholec’s Miranda waiver, although the statements were otherwise voluntary.
Result: judgment of conviction reversed and remanded with directions to suppress statements made after the 1:07 mark; circuit court may consider plea withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of confession (Goodchild)	Edson’s deceptive Reid‑style tactics did not overbear Rejholec’s will; statements voluntary.	Lies and pressure rendered confession involuntary.	Statements were voluntary under the totality of circumstances; deceit alone did not overcome Rejholec’s ability to resist.
Validity of Miranda waiver after "now‑or‑never" statements	Miranda warnings were given and initially waived; waiver remained valid.	Edson’s repeated misrepresentations that invoking rights would prevent Rejholec from testifying or telling his story invalidated the waiver.	Waiver became invalid at 1:07 when detective misled Rejholec about his rights; post‑1:07 statements suppressed.
Remedy / effect on conviction	The conviction should stand or any error is harmless; plea withdrawal is discretionary.	Suppress tainted statements and permit plea withdrawal or other relief.	Judgment reversed; remanded to suppress post‑1:07 statements; circuit court may entertain plea‑withdrawal motion.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings protect the Fifth Amendment right against self‑incrimination)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; two‑part analysis)
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (police lies are a factor but do not automatically render a confession involuntary)
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (confessions must be voluntary under the Constitution)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (silence cannot be used to penalize a defendant after Miranda warnings)
State v. Hoppe, 261 Wis. 2d 294 (totality‑of‑circumstances voluntariness test balancing personal characteristics and police pressures)
State v. Triggs, 264 Wis. 2d 861 (Reid‑style deception discussed; false evidence lies assessed in voluntariness analysis)
State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3 (state must prove both adequate Miranda warning/waiver and voluntariness)
State v. Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301 (waiver and voluntariness are distinct but related inquiries)
Commonwealth v. Novo, 812 N.E.2d 1169 (Mass. case suppressing statements after similar "now‑or‑never" misrepresentations)