On Point blog, page 40 of 49
State ex rel. Tran v. Speech, 2009AP559-CR, District II, 3/31/2010
court of appeals decision; pro se; Resp. Br.
Appellate Procedure – Record Document not Included on Appeal
¶8 n.7:
To any extent that it is relevant to our analysis, we assume that the missing transcript of the March 23, 2009 hearing on the merits supports the circuit court’s ruling. See Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 26-27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct.
Appellate Procedure: Standard of Review: Government Informant – Documentary Evidence; Confessions, 6th Amendment: Jailhouse Snitch
State v. Carl A. Lewis, Jr., 2010 WI App 52; for Lewis: John T. Wasielewski; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review: Government Informant
¶16 Our discussion must begin, as it almost always does, with the standard of review. In deciding whether a person is a government informant or agent for purposes of this Sixth Amendment analysis, the determination regarding the relationship or understanding between the police and the informant is a factual determination.
State v. John A. Wood, 2010 WI 17
Wisconsin supreme court decision; below: certification; for Wood: Kristin E. Lehker; for amicus, Disability Rights Watch: Kristin Kerschensteiner; Supp. App. Br.; Supp. Resp.; Supp. Reply
¶13 A party may challenge a law or government action as being unconstitutional on its face. Under such a challenge, the challenger must show that the law cannot be enforced “under any circumstances.”
State v. Alexander Marinez, 2010 WI App 34
court of appeals decision; for Marinez: David Leeper; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Appellate Procedure – Waiver and Effective Assistance of Counsel
¶12 n. 12:
Although Marinez argues ineffective assistance of counsel, he also asks that we review his statutory and due process arguments directly. He cites to State v. Anderson, 2006 WI 77,
Palisades Collection v. Kalal, 2009AP482, Dist IV, 2/4/2010
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review – Evidence Admissibility
¶14 However, not all evidentiary rulings are discretionary. For example, if an evidentiary issue requires construction or application of a statute to a set of facts, a question of law is presented and our review is de novo. State v. Jensen, 2007 WI App 256, ¶9, 306 Wis. 2d 572, 743 N.W.2d 468.
State v. Marvin L. Beauchamp, 2010 WI App 42
court of appeals decision, affirmed, 2011 WI 27; for Beauchamp: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; case activity
Dying Declaration, § 908.045(3)
¶8 … dying declaration, codified in Wisconsin Stat. Rule 908.045(3): “A statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the declarant’s impending death.” Under established law,
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review – Competency of Defendant (pre-2010 Caselaw)
Go: here.
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review – Constitutionality of Statute (pre-2010 Caselaw)
Go: here.