Wilkes v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
631 A.2d 880 (1993)
Thomas Wilkes (defendant) began stalking Johnetta McLean after their romantic relationship soured. Ultimately, Wilkes ran McLean’s car off the road and fired at least seven shots at McLean and her coworker, Michelle Williams, as the women were trapped in McLean’s car. McLean died, and Williams was permanently paralyzed. The day after the crime, police obtained a warrant and arrested Wilkes. Wilkes made several incriminating statements without proper advisement or waiver of his Miranda rights, including disclosing where he discarded the gun and repeatedly saying “I did it.” The trial court determined that Wilkes’s statements, although voluntarily given, violated Miranda. Thus, the government (plaintiff) could not introduce the statements in its case-in-chief but could introduce the statements if Wilkes testified inconsistently with them. Wilkes presented an insanity defense through an expert witness, psychiatrist Dr. Saiger. Saiger testified that Wilkes had a dissociative disorder preventing Wilkes from controlling his behavior or realizing the implications of his actions. The prosecution impeached Saiger by asking whether his opinion would change had he known that Wilkes remembered what happened a day after the crime; Saiger admitted that the diagnosis was based largely on Wilkes’s claim that he had no memory of the shootings. The prosecution presented rebuttal witnesses, including police personnel who described Wilkes’s incriminating statements, and three experts who opined that, based in part on these statements, Wilkes was not legally insane during this crime. The trial court repeatedly cautioned the jury that Wilkes’s statements were admitted solely for the jury to determine how to weigh the experts’ opinions. The jury convicted Wilkes of armed second-degree murder and other offenses. Wilkes appealed, claiming that the introduction of his illegally obtained statements violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Terry, J.)
Dissent (Farrell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 707,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.