On Point: a. Binding authority

On Point is very pleased to publish this guest post by Attorney Michael B. Brennan, currently practicing with Gass Weber Mullins LLC, and formerly a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. Mr. Brennan offers his thoughts on the fractured decision of the supreme court in State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25. On Point invites readers to submit comments to this post, in the box below.

As Dean Kearney pointed out in an interesting speech he gave to the Western District of Wisconsin bar association,

Columbia County v. Fred A. Ederer, 2010AP2369, District 4, 5/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ederer: John Smerlinski; case activity

Ederer’s no contest plea waived his right to appeal suppression issue in this OWI-1st (therefore, civil) case. His reliance on County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 Wis. 2d 269, 275-76, 542 N.W.2d 196 (Ct. App. 1995) (court should consider 4-factor test in determining whether to impose waiver bar) is misplaced:

¶5        Ederer acknowledges that Quelle was partially overruled on other grounds by Washburn County v.

State v. Brad E. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, reversing 2010 WI App  11; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee; amicus: Colleen D. Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Forbush’s 6th amendment right to counsel had already attached – because a criminal complaint had been filed – and he had retained counsel before officers began interrogating him on that charge in the absence of his attorney.

Adam Martine v. Quentin J. Williams, 2011 WI App 68 (recommended for publication); case activity

¶13      Prior to last year, this court applied a general rule regarding court of appeals’ cases reversed by the supreme court that “holdings not specifically reversed on appeal retain precedential value.”  Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 78, ¶44, 326 Wis. 2d 729, 786 N.W.2d 78 (citation omitted).  

Richardson v. Henderson, 2010AP1765, District 2, 3/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity

¶7, n.4:

Our supreme court has held that “when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.”  Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co.

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,

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,”

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.

Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company, 2010 WI 78

¶42 We next address whether a court of appeals decision retains any precedential value when it is overruled by this court. We hold that when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.

A less obscure problem than you might think.

court of appeals decision, affirmed 2011 WI 6; for Brenda: Leonard D. Kachinsky

TPR – Plea to Grounds

In taking a plea to TPR grounds, the court need not inform the parent of “sub-dispositions,” i.e., those which “pertain only to the effect on the child, addressing who will have guardianship and custody in the event the parent’s rights are terminated as a primary disposition,”