On Point

Nielsen sanction after show cause (summary order, not citable), on remand from State v. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94

Sanction for Incomplete Brief Appendix 

The appellant’s brief argued that the circuit court failed to fulfill the mandate articulated in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, to explain the rationale for the particular sentence imposed.

State v. Damon Keith Sutton, 2012 WI App 7 (recommended for publication); for Sutton: Maayan Silver; case activity

Reasonable Suspicion – “Frisk,” of Vehicle

Reasonable suspicion supported “protective search” of Sutton’s van following routine traffic stop: While the officer ran a document check, Sutton remained in the van. The officer discerned “distinct rocking motions,” which the officer’s training and experience informed her represented “someone who may be trying to retrieve or conceal a weapon.”

State v. Demonte D. Miller, 2011AP1069-CR, District 1, 12/6/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Miller: Hannah Blair Schieber, Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Temporary stop of Miller not supported by reasonable suspicion under the following facts: Miller was part of “a quiet candlelight vigil for Miller’s best friend, who had been killed the night before”; as officers passed by,

on review of unpublished decision; for Smith: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Sufficiency of Evidence (Possession with Intent to Deliver) – Circumstantial Evidence Standard of Review / 
Stipulation (Offense Element) – Right to Jury Trial

Issues (from Smith’s PFR): 

1. The Trial Evidence Was Insufficient to Support Smith’s Conviction of Possessing a Controlled Substance (THC) With Intent to Deliver,

Drafting and filing petitions without disclosing counsel’s involvement (“ghostwriting”) didn’t violate counsel’s duty of candor to the court, In re Liu, 2nd Cir. No. 09-90006-am, 11/22/11 (“we conclude that her ghostwriting did not constitute sanctionable misconduct … In light of this Court’s lack of any rule or precedent governing attorney ghostwriting, and the various authorities that permit that practice, we conclude that Liu could not have been aware of any general obligation to disclose her participation to this Court.”

State v. Nikolas S. Czysz, 2010AP2804-CR, District 2/4, 12/1/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Czysz: Dianne M. Erickson; case activity

The trial court properly exercised its discretion under State v. Gonzalez, 2008 WI App 142, 314 Wis. 2d 129, 758 N.W.2d 153, in dismissing a juror on the fourth day of trial after the learning that two of the juror’s sons had been prosecuted by another prosecutor from the same district attorney’s office prosecuting Czysz.

State v. Michael Perzel, III, 2011AP1190-CR, District 4, 12/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Perzel: Waring R. Fincke; case activity

Blood test results are admissible without expert testimony to reflect a person’s bac at the time in question (in this OWI-related prosecution, at the time Perzel was driving), so long as the blood was drawn by a person enumerated in § 343.305(5)(d). One such person is a “registered nurse.”

Thanks to blogger Bill Tyroler’s Westlaw-like brain, incisive analysis, entertaining writing, and warp-speed posting, On Point is now celebrating 100,000 hits.  Not too shabby for a blog devoted to improving indigent defense in Wisconsin.  Cheers to the many faithful readers who have made On Point a “hit” !