On Point blog, page 81 of 120
Serial Litigation Bar: Application to Motion for Postconviction Discovery
State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2011 WI App 22; for Kletzien: James A. Rebholz; case activity; Kletzien BiC; State Resp.; Reply
In a prior appeal, Kletzien unsuccessfully challenged denial of postconviction discovery, 2008 WI App 182. (See, e.g., State v. O’Brien, 223 Wis. 2d 303,
Guilty Plea Colloquy – Plea Questionnaire; Plea Bargain – Breach: Waiver Doctrine
State v. Henry Edward Reed, Jr., 2009AP3149-CR, District 1, 1/11/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Reed: Basil M. Loeb; case activity; Reed BiC; State Resp.
Guilty Plea Colloquy – Plea Questionnaire
Reed’s claim that he didn’t understand the significance of read-in offenses is defeated by their coverage in the plea questionnaire, and the plea court’s eliciting “that Reed had not only read the form,
Judicial Estoppel
State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr., 2011 WI App 21; case activity; Ryan BiC; State Resp.; Reply
¶26 “‘Judicial estoppel is a doctrine that is aimed at preventing a party from manipulating the judiciary as an institution by asserting a position in a legal proceeding and then [later] taking an inconsistent position.’” State v. White,
Sanctions – Appellate Procedure
Thomas Vitrano v. Milwaukee Police Department, 2010AP1987, District 1, 1/11/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; Resp. Br.
We note with some frustration that neither party included a single citation to the record in their respective briefs in violation of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d). Record cites are helpful to the court and are required even when the record is not voluminous.
Confrontation – Generally – Forfeiture by Wrongdoing – Harmless Error; Other Acts Evidence: Pornography (& Intent to Kill); Consent to Search; Judicial Bias
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply
Confrontation – Generally
The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,
Jury – Deliberations – Sequestration
State v. Bradley A. Brandsma, 2010AP1429-CR , District 4, 12/23/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brandsma: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity; Brandsma BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Trial courts have “very broad discretion” under § 972.12 to allow a deliberating jury to separate overnight before returning to resume deliberations; court of appeals rejects argument under state and federal constitutions “a circuit court should presume that any separation of a jury renders that jury impartial in light of rapidly changing modes and content of publicly available information,”
Evidence – Ongoing Conflict with Deceased, Hearsay – Residual Exception, 3rd-Party Guilt; Sufficiency of Evidence – Homicide
State v. Kevin M. Moore, 2009AP3167-CR, District 2, 12/15/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Moore: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Moore BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Frequenting “Gentleman’s Club” as Source of Friction with Deceased
Evidence that Moore spent much time and money at a local “gentleman’s club,” offered by the State to as support for an “ongoing conflict”
Miranda – Impeachment – Harmless Error
State v. Marlon M. Anderson, 2010AP742-CR, District 1/4, 12/9/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Anderson: Angela Conrad Kachelski; Anderson BiC; State Resp.
A defendant’s statement made voluntarily but in violation of Miranda isn’t admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, but is admissible if the defendant testifies and the statement is inconsistent with his testimony. The question raised here relates to how such inconsistency is measured: whether outright contradictions are necessary,
Plea Bargain Breach: Prosecutorial Failure to Make Agreed IC-Recommendation not Material Breach
State v. Mark Allan Campbell, 2011 WI App 18; for Campbell: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; Campbell BiC; State Resp.; Reply
(Sentencing issue in the case discussed separately, here.)
Plea Bargain – Breach
The plea agreement required the prosecutor to recommend a 20-year sentence, comprised of 5-7 years’ confinement and the balance on extended supervision,
Warrantless Blood Draw – Driving under Influence of Drugs
State v. Travis J. Malinowski, 2010AP1084-CR, District 3, 11/30/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Malinowski: Chad A. Lanning; Malinowski BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Exigent-circumstances doctrine supports warrantless blood draw of person arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, no less than under the influence of alcohol, State v. Bohling, 173 Wis.