On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Daniel W. Kohel, 2010AP1057-CR, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kohel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity; Kohel BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Prosecutorial delay, measuring at least 2 years and perhaps longer, in disclosing potentially exculpatory evidence violated Kohel’s right to speedy trial and therefore supports dismissal with prejudice of the pending charge.

State v. Craig A. Erickson, 2010AP1763-CR, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Erickson: Kirk B. Obear; case activity; Erickson BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Laboratory assistant, acting under direction of pathologist and following laboratory procedures, is qualified under § 343.305(5)(b) to draw blood. State v. Penzkofer, 184 Wis.

State v. Thomas R. Paulick, 2010AP1883, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Paulick: Robert C. Raymond; case activity; Paulick BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The officer’s conclusion of speeding may be based on a visual estimate “while looking in his rear view mirror,” ¶8, citing City of Milwaukee v.

State v. Henry Edward Reed, Jr., 2009AP3149-CR,  District 1, 1/11/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Reed: Basil M. Loeb; case activity; Reed BiC; State Resp.

Guilty Plea Colloquy – Plea Questionnaire

Reed’s claim that he didn’t understand the significance of read-in offenses is defeated by their coverage in the plea questionnaire, and the plea court’s eliciting “that Reed had not only read the form,

State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr., 2011 WI App 21; case activity; Ryan BiC; State Resp.; Reply

¶26      “‘Judicial estoppel is a doctrine that is aimed at preventing a party from manipulating the judiciary as an institution by asserting a position in a legal proceeding and then [later] taking an inconsistent position.’”  State v. White,

Thomas Vitrano v. Milwaukee Police Department, 2010AP1987, District 1, 1/11/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; Resp. Br.

footnote 2:

We note with some frustration that neither party included a single citation to the record in their respective briefs in violation of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d).  Record cites are helpful to the court and are required even when the record is not voluminous. 

State v. Jonathan A. Meenen, 2009AP3107-CR, District 3, 1/11/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Meenen: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Meneen BiC; State Resp.; Reply

On a charge of 1st-degree sexual assault of a (5-year-old) child, evidence of Meneen’s prior juvenile adjudication for sexual contact with an 8-year-old was admissible:

• Acceptable purpose.

certification; for Spaeth: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Spaeth BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Review granted 2/8/11

ISSUE

In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 460 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the government may compel incriminating testimony so long as it comes with a grant of use and derivative use immunity—that is to say,

State v. Tyler T., 2010AP784, District 2, 12/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication), affirmed, 2012 WI 52; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The prosecution isn’t prevented from appearing at a waiver recommendation staffing by the local health and human services agency, notwithstanding absence of the juvenile or his attorney.

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,