On Point blog, page 23 of 23
Judicial Estoppel – Reliance on Party’s Position
State Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg
Holding: Kenyon’s change in position from trial to appeal doesn’t fall within estoppel doctrine, because neither prosecution nor trial court relied on the changed position.
Judicial Estoppel: Challenge to Favorable Ruling
State v. Darcy N.K., 218 Wis. 2d 640, 581 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Darcy K.: Kenneth L. Lund, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: A party who prevailed at the trial level is judicially estopped, on appeal, from challenging the trial court’s favorable action taken at his or her own request.
Waiver of Issue: Jury Selection – Batson Objection, Timeliness: Prior to Jury’s Swearing
State v. Dennis Jones, 218 Wis. 2d 599, 581 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Jones: Michael S. Holzman
Issue/Holding:
The State argues that Jones’s Batson objection, made after the jury was sworn, came too late. Jones responds that his objection was timely. We conclude that the defendant must make a Batson objection prior to the time the jury is sworn. If the objection is not made until after that time,
Briefs – Argument – Must Be Supported by Authority
State v. Mary Boyer, 198 Wis. 2d 837, 543 N.W. 562 (Ct. App. 1995):
In an “argument” presented in one sentence, the defendants assert, without citation to authority, that if § 161.47, STATS., does not apply to them, “there is an equal protection under the law problem that will arise.” Arguments in appellate briefs must be supported by authority, RULE 809.19(1)(e) & (3)(a), STATS., and we need not consider arguments that do not comply,