On Point blog, page 23 of 29
Habeas Review – Parole Denial – Limited to Opportunity to be Heard and Statement of Reasons
Swarthout v. Damon Cooke, USSC No. 10-333, 1/24/11
Review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 of a state’s decision to deny parole is limited to whether the inmate was provided an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons why parole was denied. The federal court simply has no authority to scrutinize the merits of the denial.
… Because the only federal right at issue is procedural,
State v. Joseph J. Spaeth, 2009AP2907-CR, District 2, 12/29/10
certification; for Spaeth: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Spaeth BiC; State Resp.; Reply
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,
Evidence – Ongoing Conflict with Deceased, Hearsay – Residual Exception, 3rd-Party Guilt; Sufficiency of Evidence – Homicide
State v. Kevin M. Moore, 2009AP3167-CR, District 2, 12/15/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Moore: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Moore BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Frequenting “Gentleman’s Club” as Source of Friction with Deceased
Evidence that Moore spent much time and money at a local “gentleman’s club,” offered by the State to as support for an “ongoing conflict”
Guardianship – Respondent’s Right to Personal Presence
Jefferson County v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (recommended for publication); for Joseph S.: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Failure of trial court to warn guardianship respondent of possibility of removal from courtroom for disruptive behavior prior to ordering his removal deprived court of competency to proceed.
¶5 A determination that a person “is incompetent … is as difficult a judgment as a judge is called upon to make,” and thus the legislature has adopted procedural requirements “to mitigate the chances of error.” Byrn v.
Exculpatory Evidence Preservation; Right to Inform Jury of Evidence Destruction
State v. Joshua Lashawn Munford, 2010 WI App 168 (recommended for publication); for Munford: Joseph L. Sommers; Munford BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Munford’s claim that police destruction of his van violated due process is rejected, because the van didn’t have apparent exculpatory value. His defense against the homicide charge was that someone else fired shots that went through the van and struck the victim who was on the street.
Richard M. Fischer v. Ozaukee Co. Circ. Ct., 741 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Wis. 2010)
federal habeas decision (pdf file: here), granting relief in State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6; respondent’s Rule 59 motion to amend judgment denied 1/7/11
Habeas Review – Right to Present Defense – Expert Opinion, Based PBT
Preventing Fisher from adducing expert opinion he wasn’t driving with a prohibited alcohol content based on analysis of his PBT, because of the absolute evidentiary bar under § 343.303 on PBTs,
Habeas – Effective Assistance – Stun Belt
John M. Stephenson v. Levenhagen, 7th Cir No. 09-2924, 08/26/2010
7th Cir decision; petition for rehearing denied 1/14/11, 3 dissents from denial of en banc review
Habeas – Effective Assistance – Stun Belt
Counsel’s failure to object to placement of stun belt on Stephenson during trial was held by the state court to be deficient: accepting that conclusion (albeit with apparent reluctance), the federal court holds on habeas review that the deficiency wasn’t prejudicial.
Delinquency – Notice
State v. Justin H., No. 2009AP2935, District III, 6/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Justin H.: Leonard D. Kachinsky
¶9 However, even assuming Justin properly preserved a due process argument, we reject it. Due process principles require that a juvenile against whom a delinquency petition has been filed be given “notice … sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings … set[ting] forth the alleged misconduct with particularity.” State v.
Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration, § 301.45
State v. James W. Smith, 2010 WI 16, affirming 2009 WI App 16; for Smith: Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate
The § 301.45 reporting requirement applicable to any violation of false imprisonment of a minor not the defendant’s child is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in protecting the public, particularly children, ¶¶27-36.
Keep in mind that Smith challenged the statute as applied to him.
State v. John A. Wood, 2010 WI 17
Wisconsin supreme court decision; below: certification; for Wood: Kristin E. Lehker; for amicus, Disability Rights Watch: Kristin Kerschensteiner; Supp. App. Br.; Supp. Resp.; Supp. Reply
¶13 A party may challenge a law or government action as being unconstitutional on its face. Under such a challenge, the challenger must show that the law cannot be enforced “under any circumstances.”