On Point blog, page 1 of 1
State v. Demone Alexander, 2011AP394-CR, WSC review granted 11/14/12
on review of unpublished decision; case activity
Issues (composed by On Point)
1. Whether the non-waivable nature of the defendant’s right to personal presence at voir dire, citing, § 971.04(1)(c); State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 839, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999), extends to examination of a juror for possible dismissal following selection and swearing-in.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed two jurors,
Waiver / Forfeiture of Right: Generally – Right to Presence / Testify; Sentencing: Accurate Information – New Factor
State v. Allen Dell Vaughn, 2012 WI App 129 (recommended for publication); case activity
Waiver / Forfeiture of Right, Generally
Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege; forfeiture is: (1) the failure to object to something without intending to relinquish that which an objection might have preserved and (2) doing something incompatible with the assertion of a right, ¶21, citing State v.
State v. Demone Alexander, 2011AP394-CR, District 1, 5/8/12, WSC rev granted 11/14/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Alexander: Hans P. Koesser; case activity
Juror Selection / Dismissal – Right to Personal Presence
A defendant has a non-waivable right to personal presence at voir dire, ¶6 (citing, § 971.04(1)(c); and, State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 839, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct.
State v. Jon Anthony Soto, 2010AP2273, review granted, 6/15/11
on certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post
Issues (composed by On Point):
Whether a defendant has a non-waivable right to be physically present at a §§ 971.04(1)(g) and 885.60.
If the right to physical presence at the plea proceeding can be waived or forfeited, whether a formal colloquy is nonetheless required before the defendant enters a plea via video conferencing.
State v. Brandon J. Carter, 2010 WI App 37
court of appeals decision; for Carter: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Ex Parte Judicial Questioning, Pretrial Proceeding
Pretrial judicial questioning of a witness at return of a bench warrant worked deprivation of the defendant’s rights to counsel and presence at trial when the witness was subsequently impeached with statements she made during that exchange, ¶¶17-21. The error, though occurring but once and limited to impeachment,