On Point blog, page 1 of 3
SCOW majority overrules Shiffra/Green
State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, 05/16/2023, reversing a published court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)
As the dissent aptly describes it, “[t]his case has traveled a long and winding road to this point, and Johnson’s trial has not yet begun.” (Opinion, ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). As discussed in On Point’s prior posts, here and here, this case was originally about whether “Marsy’s Law” gave crime victims standing to intervene in Shiffra–Green litigation. After the court appeals held that it did and after Johnson petitioned for review, the supreme court took up the case. Then, in a footnote in its response brief, the state asserted that, “Shiffra is incorrect to the extent that it holds that Ritchie applies to records outside the State’s possession.” (Op., ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). Thereafter, the supreme court ordered supplemental briefing on a new question: “Should the court overrule State v. Shiffra…?” (Op., ¶4). And, now the majority has done just that.
SCOW ignores import of withheld evidence; declares it “immaterial”
State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman, 2023 WI 1, 1/10/23, reversing a per curiam court of appeals opinion, 2020AP226, case activity (including briefs)
At Hineman’s trial for sexual assault of a child, a police officer testified that she believed the child had accused Hineman of touching him several months before her investigation began, and several months before the child made similar statements in a forensic interview. This wasn’t true, and the officer’s police report contradicted her testimony on this point: it said a CPS report had noted no allegations of abuse. But when defense counsel attempted to impeach the officer with her own report, the officer testified that she “didn’t know if” she’d “documented” the alleged prior consistent accusation, and while she “would think [she] would have” written such information in the report, she “might not have.” It would have been easy to prove conclusively that there was no such allegation: counsel just needed the CPS report. But she didn’t have it, because the state–in what it concedes was a violation of its Brady obligations–didn’t turn it over. SCOW now says “eh, who cares?” and reverses the court of appeals’ grant of a new trial.
SCOW will review Brady’s “material evidence” requirement
State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman, 2020AP226-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 4/13/22; reversed 1/10/23; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from the State’s petition for review)
1. In cases involving credibility contests between a complaining witness (here, S.S.) and the defendant (Hineman), to what extent can a reviewing court reweigh the witnesses’ credibility in assessing whether, based on omitted evidence, there was a reasonable likelihood of a different result under the Brady materiality or Strickland prejudice standards?
2. The court of appeals also reached an abandoned Shiffra/Green issue and ordered in camera review of S.S.’s therapy files from his private therapist because the therapist acted as a mandatory reporter.
No felony witness intimidation without proof of felony charges
State v. Gary Abdullah Salaam, 2014AP2666-CR & 2667-CR, 9/13/2016, District 1 (Not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Salaam raises four claims challenging his convictions, at jury trial, of recklessly endangering safety, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and three counts of witness intimidation. The court affirms as to the first two counts but finds insufficient evidence as to the witness intimidation charges.
No severance, no ineffective assistance, no suppression, no in camera review of mental health records
State v. Gregory Tyson Below, 2014AP2614-2616-CR, 1/12,16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity, including briefs
This was a high profile case in Milwaukee. Below was convicted of 29 charges of kidnapping, strangulation and suffocation, sexual assault, battery, reckless injury and solicitation of prostitutes. He appealed and asserted 4 claims for a new trial. The court of appeals rejected all of them.
Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to overrule State v. Shiffra, but divides on remedy “in this case”
State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2013 WI 59 (per curiam), affirming, as modified, an unpublished court of appeals opinion; reconsideration granted, 2014 WI 16 (per curiam); Justices Prosser and Gableman not participating; case activity
(Note: On July 22, 2013, both Johnson and the state filed motions for reconsideration of the court’s original decision;
Sentencing – Due Process – In Camera Hearing, Privileged Information
Robert Dietrich v. Smith, 7th Cir No. 12-1672, 12/4/12
seventh circuit decision, on habeas review, affirming 2011C117 (E.D. Wis 2/23/12); prior history: State v. Dietrich, Wis. App. 2008AP1697-CR
After the trial court denied his request for an in camera inspection of the sexual assault victim’s mental health records, State v. Green, 2002 WI 68,
State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2011AP2864-CRAC, WSC review granted 11/14/12
on review of unpublished decision; case activity
Issues (composed by On Point)
1. Whether the defendant made the requisite showing for in camera review of the complainant’s privileged therapy records.
2. Whether, given necessity for in camera review, the complainant’s refusal to authority release of the records mandates suppression of her testimony.
The implications for the administration of State v.
Consent to Search – Scope – Trial Court Findings
State v. Timothy D. Moseley, 2011AP892-CR, District 1, 5/1/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Moseley: Michael J. Steinle; case activity
Moseley’s contention, that he qualified his written consent to search with an oral limitation, was rejected by the trial court as a matter of credibility; that finding of fact is now affirmed:
¶18 The trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses.
Shiffra-Green Procedure – Privileged Records – Remedy
State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2011AP2864-CRAC, District 2, 4/18/12, WSC rev granted 11/14/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Johnson: Mark D. Richards, Michael F. Hart, Craig S. Powell, Geoffrey R. Misfeldt; case activity
Shiffra-Green Procedure – Privileged Records – Remedy Where Witness Declines Consent for in Camera Review
Johnson, charged with sexual assault of his stepdaughter T.S.,