The Rhinelander Daily News - Online news and information for the Rhinelander, Wisconsin region

The state’s highest court will review an Oneida County case involving the death of a 7-week-old baby, Allen Thomas White, in 2004.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will decide whether the baby’s aunt, Jennifer L. Ward, voluntarily gave incriminating statements to police and knowingly waived her right to an attorney.

The case was among 17 new cases the court will decide in the coming term, according to its Website, www.wicourts.gov.

Ward, 39, was convicted of first degree reckless homicide in 2005 following an emotional five-day trial in Oneida County Circuit Court.

The state argued Ward, who was babysitting the infant while his parents were out of town, tossed him about six feet from a bathroom to a bed during the early morning hours of Dec. 1, 2004.

The state claimed Ward, who suffers from a severe back problem, became frustrated while caring for the child.

After noticing the baby was no longer breathing, Ward called a first responder who lived across the street.

The first responder performed CPR on the baby until EMTs took him to a hospital where he later died. Ward allegedly suffered some combination of a blackout and a seizure when she was told the baby had died, causing emergency personnel to transport her to the hospital as well.

During initial questioning at the hospital, Ward denied having any knowledge as to the cause of Thomas' death.

Detective Sergeant Glenn Schaepe, who has since retired from the Oneida County Sheriff’s Department, repeatedly told Ward during questioning that she must have caused an injury to Thomas in some way and that she was blocking the memories from her consciousness. Schaepe also told Ward that one of her children had seen her shake Thomas, although he did not explain that the child had described Ward's shaking of Thomas as an effort to rouse him after he had become unconscious.

Schaepe later arranged for Ward to be transported from the hospital to the sheriff’s department. Ward’s husband, Joe, and an attorney arrived at the sheriff’s department shortly thereafter but Schaepe refused to notify Ward of their presence.

He did advise Ward of her Miranda rights and asked if she wanted to speak with an attorney. Although Ward asked whether this question meant she needed an attorney, she did not specificially state that she wanted a lawyer and the interrogation continued for three more hours.

At the end of the interrogation, Schaepe told Ward that she was being taken into custody in connection with the death of Thomas. She was then taken to the county jail. Schaepe told her that she would not be allowed to make any phone calls until he had completed his interrogation of her the next day. He did not advise her that this prohibition against phone calls did not pertain to calls to an attorney. Schaepe testified that he subsequently informed jail personnel that although Ward was not allowed to contact any family members or friends, she could make a telephone call to an attorney. It is not clear whether this was communicated to Ward. In any event, Ward did not speak with anyone during the night. The next morning the attorney retained by Ward's husband again attempted to see her, but was rebuffed. Ward was questioned further and made a number of incriminating statements.

After the criminal charged were filed, Ward filed a motion to suppress the statements she had made during each of three interviews. She argued that her statements had been involuntary, and that she had not intelligently and knowingly waived her right to the assistance of counsel. The circuit court rejected Ward's arguments and concluded that she had knowingly waived her constitutional rights and had voluntarily incriminated herself. The court of appeals agreed and affirmed her conviction.

The Supreme Court will decide whether, under the totality of the circumstances, including her isolation from her husband and the attorney he hired and the half-truth about her daughter's statement, her statements to police and her waiver of her right to an attorney were knowing and voluntary.

Ward is serving a 15-year prison sentence in connection with Thomas’s death.

Tell us what you think...

Comments »

a wrote on Oct 5, 2008 9:15 PM:

" if she s telling the truth about not comitting the crime why has she changed her story so many times blaming a 9 year old child get real who she going to blame next to get her self out of the crime the pet rat.. "

SCLEO wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:23 PM:

" Ms. Smith, you are doing exactly what you said the jury should not do in your post. You are assuming that Ward's claims are the truth, without hearing any testimony. The fact is the jury heard all these claims already, and there was nothing wrong. This appeal is more about her attorney's grandstanding than it is about getting Ward off. "

SCLEO wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:17 PM:

" Ms. Smith's post here is so biased that it makes me think she has had some "professional contact" with Mr. Schaepe. If your child were murdered, you would have been lucky to have Mr. Schaepe on the case. Just ask those victims that he has worked with on their cases. As far as Sam's post goes, again, no substance. Give some specifics. If you know something, you should say it so that an internal investigation can be done and those who did wrong punished. Simply venting here does nothing. "

SCLEO wrote on Oct 2, 2008 9:10 PM:

" Ms. Smith, please explain how Mr. Schaepe abused his power. Just saying he abused his power does nothing, you need to explain why. You have a good understanding of coercion, but even Ward's attorney never suggested she was coerced. This is about right to counsel. What threats and intimidation were used? You seem to have some knowledge of the case, let's hear about it. I look forward to hearing your response. If I don't hear anything, that will speak volumes too. "

A wrote on Oct 2, 2008 3:50 PM:

" A suspect needs to make a clear request for an attorney, MANY people are suckered into believing they will get leniency in exchange for cooperation. 80 percent of suspects waive their rights to silence and counsel, allowing police to conduct a full-scale interrogation. Not smart at all.

Interrogations are tricky business, and not something for the faint of heart. With a few exceptions, the police are allowed to lie to a suspect to get him to confess. Intense psychological pressure is used. Best to ask for the attorney, and avoid it outright. "

Sam wrote on Oct 2, 2008 2:53 PM:

" I agree with Theresa, the law enforcement of this county is in dire need of a wake up call. I have heard numerous stories of how they opperate and manipulate people into saying something with the promise of leaneancy when it is time for the court to hear the case. If they start interrogating Glen Schaepe, they should pay close attention to his statements. Who knows what other secrets he may hold about our counties finest. "

pamela schwoch wrote on Oct 2, 2008 12:43 PM:

" jennifer is trying to get out of prison she lyed so many times in court whats nexts after this if they dont agree wht other scheme will she have my grandson alan thomas white never rest in peace "

SCLEO wrote on Oct 2, 2008 12:05 PM:

" This sounds pretty clear cut to me. She was read her rights and chose not to ask for an attorney, and agreed to answer questions. The defendant has to ask for the attorney. The attorney has no right to see the client unless the client asks for them. "

THERESA SMITH wrote on Oct 2, 2008 11:22 AM:

" COERCION IS THE PRACTICE OF COMPELLING A PERSON TO BEHAVE IN AN INVOLUNTARY WAY THROUGH USE OF THREATS OR INTIMIDATION OR IN OTHER WORDS "GLENN SCHAEPE"..
THE DEATH OF A CHILD AT THE HAND OF ANOTHER IS INEXCUSABLE AND THAT INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE,BUT HOW CAN A JURY MAKE AN APPROPRIATE JUDGEMENT IF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ALLOWED TO ABUSE THEIR POWER. RETIRED OR NOT GLENN SCHAEPE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS BEHAVIOR "

The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Rhinelander Daily News.