On Point: H. Ch. 980, SVPs

State v. Tory L. Rachel, 224 Wis.2d 571, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding:

Tory L. Rachel appeals a nonfinal order of the trial court ruling that the findings and conclusions of a court-appointed expert are subject to discovery in a ch. 980, STATS., proceeding. Because the rules of civil procedure, chs. 801 to 847,

State v. Harry S. Bernstein, 231 Wis.2d 392, 605 N.W.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bernstein: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: After the state requests then withdraws a request for jury in a Ch. 980 proceeding, must trial to the court be premised on the respondent’s personal consent to this withdrawal?

Holding: Under § 980.05(2) the respondent’s consent to the state’s withdrawn assertion of jury trial need not be personal,

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the probable cause hearing was held within 72 hours of filing of the Ch. 980 petition, as required by § 980.04(2).

Holding: The trial court’s finding that the hearing was held within 72 hours of filing, exclusive of the weekend, is not clearly erroneous.

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue/Holding: Prediction of future dangerousness may be made of a juvenile in a Ch. 980 proceeding.

The state’s experts assessed Matthew’s dangerousness by using the “Doren criteria,” which were developed through research involving adults. Moreover, Matthew adduced evidence “that juveniles have a lower propensity to reoffend in sexual violence situations.”

Reuben Adams v. Bartow, 330 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2003), denying habeas relief in State v. Adams, 223 Wis. 2d 60, 588 N.W.2d 336 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Adams: Samuel Arena (Foley & Lardner)

Issue: Whether the state court affirmance of Adams’ commitment unreasonably applied Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) or Foucha v.

State v. Paul Matek, 223 Wis.2d 611, 589 N.W.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Matek: Russell Bohach

Holding: Evidence to support ch. 980 SVP verdict sustained: the diagnosis took into account Matek’s refusal to participate in treatment, and therefore the verdict “was not based solely on his prior bad acts.”

State v. Ronald J. Zanelli (II), 223 Wis.2d 545, 589 N.W.2d 687 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Zanelli: Jane K. Smith.

Holding: Second time’s not the charm for Zanelli, who won his 1st appeal, State v. Zanelli (I), 212 Wis. 2d 358, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1997). On this subsequent appeal, the court holds the evidence  sufficient to establish his pedophilia. The state’s expert witnesses testified that Zanelli suffers from pedophilia,

State v. Reuven Seibert, 220 Wis. 2d 308, 582 N.W.2d 745 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Seibert: Jane Krueger Smith

Issue/Holding: “(W)hether the proceeding is one under the initial ch. 980 commitment or a later petition for supervised release under § 980.08, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that the State prove the person is treatable.”