State v. Peter J. Hanson, 928 N.W.2d 607

In 1998 Chad McLean was murdered; his body was found with gunshot wounds. The case went cold until 2009 when Hanson's estranged wife Kathy told police Hanson confessed. Kathy died before the John Doe.
In November 2012 a John Doe proceeding was convened; Hanson, then incarcerated on unrelated charges, testified and made incriminating statements after the judge read most Miranda warnings but omitted advising appointment of counsel if indigent.
Portions of Hanson’s John Doe testimony—relating what Detective Laskowski told him Kathy had said—were admitted at trial; Hanson objected on Confrontation Clause and hearsay grounds but did not testify at trial.
Multiple other witnesses testified to Hanson's out‑of‑court confessions and that Kathy had told police; the jury convicted Hanson of first‑degree intentional homicide and sentenced him to life without parole.
Hanson sought postconviction relief arguing (1) admission of the John Doe testimony violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on Miranda grounds. The court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hanson)	Held
Whether admission of Hanson’s John Doe testimony relating Kathy’s statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Testimony was not offered for the truth but to show Hanson’s consciousness of guilt; thus not hearsay/testimonial	The John Doe excerpt put Kathy’s unconfronted accusatory statement before the jury in violation of Crawford	Court held no Confrontation violation: the John Doe testimony was offered for nonhearsay purpose (consciousness of guilt) and Crawford did not apply
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting that Hanson was not read full Miranda warnings at the John Doe	Miranda warnings not required at John Doe; counsel’s strategy reasonable given unsettled law	Failure to object on Miranda grounds rendered counsel deficient and prejudiced Hanson	Court held no deficient performance because the law was unsettled on Miranda at John Doe proceedings; ineffective‑assistance claim fails
Whether Miranda warnings are required at John Doe proceedings	Miranda applies only to custodial police interrogation; John Doe is judicial, not police custodial, proceeding	Miranda should apply because witness (Hanson) was in custody on unrelated charges when questioned	Court held as a matter of first impression that Miranda warnings are not required at John Doe proceedings; John Doe is not custodial interrogation like police questioning

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause limits use of testimonial hearsay)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (Miranda warnings not required for grand jury witnesses)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (imprisonment alone does not always create Miranda custody)
State v. Manuel, 281 Wis. 2d 554 (Wisconsin discussion of Confrontation Clause principles)