State v. Stevens, 822 N.W.2d 79

Stevens was arrested July 22–23, 2008 for sexual contact with a child; after a first interrogation he invoked the right to counsel and the questioning stopped.
He initiated contact to resume questioning and, after a second Miranda warning, waived rights and made an incriminating statement.
Attorney Yuan attempted to meet Stevens at the station around 1:00 p.m. but was denied access; Stevens had not been charged on the new matter yet.
The circuit court suppressed the second interview; the court of appeals reversed; the State sought review.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held Stevens’ Fifth Amendment and Article I, §8 rights were not violated and overruled Middleton on the merits; Blum’s broader overrule rule discussed for retroactivity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Stevens' waiver after initiation comply with Miranda and Edwards when counsel had previously been invoked?	Stevens invoked, so interrogation should cease until counsel is present.	Once Stevens initiated contact after invocation, a new waiver and warnings could validly restart questioning.	Yes; substitution of a second waiver after initiation was valid.
Did Anson overrule Middleton, and should Middleton have governed Stevens’ case?	Middleton controlled, requiring suppression for lack of attorney presence/knowledge.	Anson overruled Middleton only on evidentiary scope; Middleton distinguished and not controlling.	Middleton is overruled on merits; Anson governs, but Middleton’s factual distinctions preclude suppression.
Does Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Ins. Co. affect whether Middleton remains controlling precedent?			Blum applies retroactively with caveats; Middleton is overruled on merits, not solely by Blum's retroactive reach.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes warning, rights, and voluntary waiver requirements in custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (once counsel is invoked, interrogation must cease unless suspect initiates further communication)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (police need not inform about attorney’s efforts; waiver validity remains intact)
State v. Hanson, 136 Wis. 2d 195 (Wis. 1987) (Wisconsin rejects requiring knowledge of attorney availability to affect waiver analysis)
State v. Middleton, 135 Wis.2d 297 (Ct. App. 1986) (Middleton’s approach to attorney visitation and waiver applicability (overruled on merits))
State v. Anson, 2005 WI 96 (Wis. 2005) (overruled Middleton to the extent it allowed Harrison evidentiary hearings; partial overruling acknowledged)
Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Ins. Co., 326 Wis.2d 729 (Wis. 2010) (overruled precedential value of overruled decisions; applied retroactively with caveats)
Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1990) (permits waiver after counsel is requested if the suspect initiates further communication)