On Point: 11. Defense Wins

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Prosecutorial Misconduct – Knowing Use of False Testimony

When the government obtains a conviction through the knowing use of false testimony, it violates a defendant’s due process rights. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 679 n.8 (1984) (discussing the evolution of the rule in Napue).

Donald Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, 6/23/11

The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement.

Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J. W., 2010AP2248, District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberta J.W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate, case activity

By his overweening involvement in the trial process, evincing his prejudgment of the case and asking “countless questions of the witnesses” – to an extent that the GAL objected that “the judge was abusing his function and was not being fair to Roberta -,

State v. Rodney A. Larson, 2011 WI App 106 (recommended for publication); for Larson: Chris Gramstrup; case activity

Prosecution for attempt rather than completed crime, §939.32, comes within the general limitation period in § 939.74(1). Therefore, although prosecution for homicide may be commenced at any time, § 939.74(2)(a), Larson’s prosecution for attempted first-degree intentional homicide had to be commenced within 6 years, and must be dismissed as untimely.

State v. Roshawn Smith, 2010AP1192-CR, District 3, 5/26/11, aff’d and rev’d, 2012 WI 91

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2012 WI 91; for Smith: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support guilty verdict, § 961.41(1m)(h)5., ptac: after agreeing to accept packages (which turned out to contained marijuana),

State v. Yancy D. Freland, 2011 WI App 80 (recommended for publication); for Freland: Michael D. Zell; case activity

Conviction for an out-of-state sex offense comparable to a misdemeanor in Wisconsin will be treated as a misdemeanor for sex offender registration purposes, § 301.45(6).

¶12      Wisconsin Stat. § 301.45(1d)(am)1. specifically defines has been “[f]ound to have committed a sex offense by another jurisdiction” to include a person who has been convicted “for a violation of a law of another state that is comparable to a sex offense.”[7] Taken as a whole,

State v. Brad E. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, reversing 2010 WI App  11; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee; amicus: Colleen D. Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Forbush’s 6th amendment right to counsel had already attached – because a criminal complaint had been filed – and he had retained counsel before officers began interrogating him on that charge in the absence of his attorney.

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2011 WI App 72(recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 50; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Alzheimer’s disease is not a qualifying mental condition for purposes of ch. 51 commitment, therefore Helen E.F. is not a proper subject for treatment as a matter of law. The disease is a degenerative brain disorder,

State v. Ralph H. Davis, 2011 WI App 74 (recommended for publication); for Davis: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Warrantless Entry – Curtilage – Implied Invitation Doctrine

¶9      The protections of the Fourth Amendment extend beyond the walls of the home to the “curtilage.” Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984). “[C]urtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a [person]’s home and the privacies of life,

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Certificate of Appealability

We pause briefly to note the district court’s error in denying a certificate of appealability in this case. The statute provides that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,