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

The state supreme court has scheduled oral arguments in the case of an Oneida County woman accused of killing her infant nephew.

According to computerized court records, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Jan. 8 in the case of Wisconsin v. Jennifer L. Ward.

The court will decide whether Ward, 39, voluntarily gave incriminating statements to police and knowingly waived her right to an attorney.

Ward was convicted of first degree reckless homicide in 2005 following an emotional five-day trial.

The state argued Ward, who was baby-sitting her 7-week-old nephew Allen Thomas White, tossed the baby about six feet from a bathroom to a bed during the early morning hours of Dec. 1, 2004.

See Ward, Page 3A

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 specifically 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 announced in September it would review the case.

The court will decide whether, under the totality of the circumstances, Ward’s 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 »

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