On Point: 13. Due Process

State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 (prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Failure to disclose evidence that a prosecution witness had falsely implicated Rockette in another homicide did not violate Brady, because it would not have had an impact on the outcome of the trial:

¶41      Evidence of impeachment is material if the witness whose testimony is attacked “supplied the only evidence linking the defendant(s) to the crime,” United States v.

State v. Brian Hibl, 2006 WI 52, reversing 2005 WI App 228
For Hibl: Joel H. Rosenthal

Issue: Whether an identification resulting from an “accidental” encounter between witness and defendant in a courthouse hallway immediately before trial is suppressible, in the absence of any evidence that this incident involved a law enforcement procedure directed at obtaining an identification.

Holding:

¶31      For the reasons stated below,

State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶33      The Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause right to present a defense requires that a defendant be allowed to introduce relevant evidence, subject to reasonable restrictions. …

¶34      The right to present a defense does not require that a defendant be allowed to present irrelevant evidence.

State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 ( prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Excluding evidence that in other, unrelated instances a witness had lied to the police in an attempt to curry favor in his own criminal cases did violate Rockette’s right to present a defense,

State v. Eric Benjamin Gardner, 2006 WI App 92
For Gardner: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶9        In addressing this issue, it is first necessary to define what a presumption is and when a presumption denies a criminal defendant due process. A presumption allows a “trier of fact to determine the existence of an element of the crime–that is, an ‘ultimate’ or ‘elemental’ fact–from the existence of one or more ‘evidentiary’ or ‘basic’ facts.” Ulster County Court v.

State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06
For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue: Whether the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” in § 942.09 is unconstitutionally vague, where the conduct involved videotaping women in a second-floor bathroom in their own house.

Holding:

¶39      However, this court and the supreme court have already concluded in several different contexts that the term “reasonable” does not render a statute unconstitutionally vague.

State v. Tyrone L. Dubose, 2005 WI 126
For Dubose: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the test for admissibility of a pretrial showup should be changed. (“A ‘showup’ is an out-of-court pretrial identification procedure in which a suspect is presented singly to a witness for identification purposes.” ¶1, n. 1, quoting State v. Wolverton, 193 Wis. 2d 234,

State v. Jeremy P., 2005 WI App 13
For Jeremy P.: Adam B. Stephens

Issue/Holding: Because mandatory sex offender registration for certain juvenile offenders, §§ 938.34(15m)(bm) and 301.45(1m), is not punishment it does not violate procedural due process, ¶¶8-15. The court’s retention of discretion in administering registration defeats a substantive due process claim, ¶22. An equal protection argument, based on claim of children-as-supsect-class, is also rejected, ¶¶23-29.

Amy Z. v. Jon T., 2004 WI 73
For Jon T.: Geoffrey Dowse

Issue/Holding:

¶20. Due process requires that the notice provided reasonably convey the information required for parties to prepare their defense and make their objections. Bachowski v. Salamone, 139 Wis. 2d 397, 412, 407 N.W.2d 533 (1987).

¶21. The guardian argues that Jon should have anticipated that all of the issues addressed in the guardianship petition would be addressed at the hearing.

Monroe Co. DHS v. Kelli B., 2004 WI 8, affirming 2003 WI App 88, 263 Wis. 2d 413, 662 N.W.2d 360
For Kelli B.: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶19 Kelli asserts that the statute, as applied to her, violates her constitutional right to substantive due process. This right emanates from the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In essence, it protects against governmental actions that are arbitrary and wrong “regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.”