On Point blog, page 1 of 15
Separation of Powers – Shared Power Regarding Judicial Continuances
State v. Charles Chvala, 2003 WI App 257, affirmed, 2005 WI 30
For Chvala: Lawton & Cates
Issue/Holding:
¶1. The criminal complaint in this action charges Charles Chvala, a senator in the Wisconsin Legislature, with extortion, misconduct in public office, and violations of campaign finance statutes. The issue on appeal is whether, as Chvala contends, Wis. Stat. § 757.13 (2001-02) prohibits the trial court from scheduling the trial in this case before the last general business floor session ends on March 11,
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-sentence – Potential Alibi Witness
State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2001 WI App 172, affirmed on other grounds, 2002 WI 77
For Leitner: Jim Scott
Issue: Whether the trial court properly denied a presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea.
Holding:
¶27. When a defendant shows a fair and just reason, the trial court should permit the plea withdrawal unless there is substantial prejudice to the prosecution.
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Prior Juvenile Offense — Probative Value
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue: Whether evidence that the defendant committed a burglary at the age of 13 was admissible as extrinsic evidence to impeach his testimonial denial, on cross-examination, of intent to steal.
Holding: § 906.08(2) expressly prohibits using extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to attack a witness’s credibility,
False Testimony
State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether an expert witness’s testimony should have been struck retrospectively when it became known, after the proceeding had concluded, that he had lied about his credentials and background, and had committed misconduct, causing him to be fired.
Holding: “¶33. We cannot conclude that the circuit court’s refusal to strike Thomalla’s testimony was improper.
Warrants – “Oath or Affirmation” Requirement
State v. Wilton Tye, 2001 WI 124
For Tye: Mark D. Richards, Christy M. Hall
Issue: Whether evidence seized under a search warrant unsupported by oath or affirmation must be suppressed.
Holding: The requirement that a search warrant be supported by oath or affirmation is an explicit and long-standing feature of both state and federal constitutions, as well as legislation, and is essential to the warrant’s validity.
Offense “Closely Related” to Formally Charged Offense
State v. Scott Leason Badker, 2001 WI App 27, 240 Wis. 2d 460, 623 N.W.2d 142
For Badker: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether the bail jumping offense was closely related to the homicide, within the meaning of the 6th amendment, so that the right to counsel attached under the latter as well as the former offense.
Holding: The 6th amendment right to counsel attaches once a formal charge has been issued,
Custody — Detention During Execution of Search Warrant — Effect of Handcuffing After Questioning
State v. Susan M. Goetz, 2001 WI App 294
For Goetz: Nila J. Robinson
Issue: Whether a person, detained during execution of a search warrant but not handcuffed until after questioning, was in custody for Miranda purposes.
Holding: A suspect detained during execution of a search warrant isn’t in custody under Miranda. ¶12. In this case, Goetz was told she was neither under arrest nor would be arrested unless she interfered with the search.
Jury – Selection – Anonymous Jury
State v. Edward A. Murillo, 2001 WI App 11, 240 Wis. 2d 666, 623 N.W.2d 187, habeas relief granted on other grds., Edward A. Murillo v. Frank, No. 04-2202, 4/1/05
For Murillo: Craig Albee
Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion by referring to jurors by number rather than name.
Holding: Because of sufficient evidence of gang involvement in this case,
Jury – Selection – “Batson” Objection
State v. Calvin Gregory, 2001 WI App 107, PFR filed 5/10/01
For Gregory: Meredith Ross, LAIP, UW Law School
Issue1: Whether defendant was entitled to a Batson hearing on the prosecutor’s articulated reasons for striking the lone African-American juror.
Holding1: The prosecutor’s asserted reasons — concerns about juror’s truthfulness; close proximity of juror’s residence to alleged scene of crime; juror’s own and family member’s involvement with criminal justice system —
Miranda Waiver – Scrupulously Honoring Right to Silence
State v. Scott Leason Badker, 2001 WI App 27, 240 Wis. 2d 460, 623 N.w.2d 142
For Badker: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether Badker’s in-custody assertion of his right to silence was scrupulously honored so as to allow re-interrogation.
Holding: Badker was arrested for sexually assaulting his girlfriend. He was released on bail, conditioned on not having contact with her. He killed her and, while he remained at large,