On Point: 4. Victim's Rights

State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, 05/16/2023, reversing a published court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)

As the dissent aptly describes it, “[t]his case has traveled a long and winding road to this point, and Johnson’s trial has not yet begun.” (Opinion, ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). As discussed in On Point’s prior posts, here and here, this case was originally about whether “Marsy’s Law” gave crime victims standing to intervene in Shiffra–Green litigation. After the court appeals held that it did and after Johnson petitioned for review, the supreme court took up the case. Then, in a footnote in its response brief, the state asserted that, “Shiffra is incorrect to the extent that it holds that Ritchie applies to records outside the State’s possession.” (Op., ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). Thereafter, the supreme court ordered supplemental briefing on a new question: “Should the court overrule State v. Shiffra…?” (Op., ¶4). And, now the majority has done just that.

We reported recently that the court of appeals has asked the supreme court to review a case challenging the ballot question that led to the adoption of Marsy’s Law in Wisconsin. As reported here, on the same day the court of appeals issued its certification, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the adoption of Marsy’s Law into the Pennsylvania Constitution based on similar challenges being made in the pending Wisconsin case.

Wisconsin Justice Initiative v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2020AP2003, certification issued 12/21/21; case activity (including briefs)

Question certified (composed by On Point):

Was the single ballot question submitting the “Marsy’s Law” constitutional amendments to voters legally insufficient because it:

(1) does not “reasonably, intelligently, and fairly comprise or have reference to every essential of the amendment,” State ex rel. Ekern v. Zimmerman, 187 Wis. 180, 201, 204 N.W. 803 (1925);

(2) is misleading, in that it contained “misinformation” and did not “mention[] [its subject] in accord with the fact,” State ex rel. Thomson v. Zimmerman, 264 Wis. 644, 660, 60 N.W.2d 416 (1953); or

(3) should have been submitted as more than one ballot question because the proposed amendment encompassed more than one subject matter and accomplished more than one purpose, McConkey v. Van Hollen, 2010 WI 57, ¶¶25-26, 41, 326 Wis. 2d 1, 783 N.W.2d 855.

State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2020 WI App 73, petition to review granted, 2/26/21; case activity (including briefs)

This is the first of what will likely be a series of appellate court decisions that re-make criminal litigation in light of “Marsy’s Law,” the recently-passed crime victims’ rights amendment to Article I, § 9m, of the Wisconsin constitution.

Honorable William Gabler v. Crime Victims Rights Board, 2017 WI 67, 6/27/2017, affirming circuit court on bypass; case activity (including briefs)

The legislature created the Crime Victims Rights Board and tasked it with, among other things, issuing “private and public reprimands of public officials” who violate victims’ rights as defined by our state Constitution and statutes. Wis. Stat. 950.09(2)(a). The supreme court now declares this mission contrary to the state Constitution when those “public officials” are judges. 

On bypass;  case activity (including briefs)

Issue (derived from court of appeals’ briefs):

Whether the Crime Victims Rights Board’s power to remedy a violation of a victim’s right to the speedy disposition of a criminal case can be applied to judges without violating the separation of powers doctrine.

Patrick G. Schilling v. State Crime Victims Rights Board, 2005 WI 17, on certification

Issue/Holding: The first sentence of Art. I, § 9m (“dignity” provision) is a statement of purpose, articulating the importance of crime victims’ rights, but is not self-executing. ¶¶13-26.

General methodology of interpreting constitutional provision – plain meaning of words; constitutional debates; earliest legislative implementation – recited, ¶16. In the present instance,