On Point: B. Speech

State v. A.N.G., 2019AP1100, 5/21/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A.N.G. and a middle-school classmate collaborated on a drawing depicting a “cartoon-style bomb,” a school, and a body on the ground. Two weeks later, a teacher caught them passing a note, which turned out to be the drawing. Naturally, the state initiated quasi-criminal proceedings alleging A.N.G. had committed disorderly conduct and made a “terrorist threat.” A.N.G. was found delinquent, but the court of appeals now reverses, saying the adjudications violate the First Amendment.

State v. Kaprisha E. Greer, 2019AP806-CR, District 1, 1/22/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Greer seeks a new trial in the interest of justice on the ground that the jury at her disorderly conduct trial should have been instructed about the meaning of “true threat” because the state elicited evidence about a threat during its case-in-chief. The court of appeals rejects her claim.

State v. Norris W. Culver, 2018 WI App 55; case activity (including briefs)

Wisconsin Stat. § 942.09(3m)(a)2. prohibits a person from posting or publishing “private representations” without the consent of the person depicted in the representation. The court of appeals rejects Culver’s claim that the statute is void because it’s overbroad and vague. The court also rejects his claim that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because of the non-violent nature of his prior felony conviction.

State v. Keith J. Eggum, 2016AP2036-CR, District 2, 11/8/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

And that factual finding dooms Eggum’s claim that his “noticeably disheveled” appearance made his trial unfair. Eggum’s complaint about the presence of extra officers for courtroom security fares no better. And topping it all off, Eggum’s First Amendment defense to the disorderly conduct charge makes no headway, either.

Packingham v. North Carolina, USSC No. 15-1194, 2017 WL 2621313 (June 19, 2017); reversing State v. Packingham, 777 S.E.2d 738 (N.C. 2015); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Lester Packingham was convicted for having sex with a 13 year old when he was 21, and was thus required to register as a sex offender for 30 years or more. Eight years later, having completed his sentence, Packingham posted on Facebook to celebrate the dismissal of a traffic ticket. He was charged with, and eventually pled to, a felony under a North Carolina law that prohibits those on the registry from accessing “a commercial social networking Web site” if they know the site allows children to sign up.

State v. William A. Wisth, 2016AP1481-CR, 5/24/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After Wisth, acting pro se, and the State picked a jury for his criminal case, the judge instructed the jurors “not to discuss the case with anyone.” The next day before trial, Wisch appeared by the public entrance to the courthouse with a sign and a stack of flyers that, in short, said “don’t trust Judge Malloy or Ozaukee County.” He tried to hand a flyer to a woman walking by, but she shook her head. She did not see what the sign or the flyers said. Turns out she was a juror. Uh oh.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to dismiss on First Amendment free speech grounds a disorderly charge that was based on Breitzman’s use of foul language toward her son inside their home?
2. Did the court of appeals misapply the standards for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel claims by deferring to the legal conclusions in the circuit court’s postconviction ruling?

State v. Christopher J. Oatman, 2015 WI App 76; case activity (including briefs)

The statute prohibiting a registered sex offender from intentionally photographing a minor without parental consent, § 948.14, violates the First Amendment because it “indiscriminately casts a wide net over expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment ….” (¶18, quoting State v. Stevenson, 2000 WI 71, ¶22, 236 Wis. 2d 86, 613 N.W.2d 90).

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioners v. The Honorable Gregory Peterson et al.; State of Wisconsin ex rel. Francis D. Schmitz v. the Honorable Gregory Peterson, & State of Wisconsin ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners v. The Honorable Gregory Peterson, et al., 2015 WI 85, issued 7/16/15; case activity: Two Unnamed Petitioners; Schmitz v. Peterson; Three Unnamed Petitioners

Unless you’ve just returned from a trip to a remote corner of the globe that’s beyond the reach of news media, you know by now that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided the so-called “John Doe” cases. The court’s decision ordered a halt into the investigation of coordinated fundraising and spending between candidate committees and certain independent groups during the 2011-12 recall campaigns. Gargantuan by any standard, the decision goes on for almost 400 pages, with a majority opinion, two concurrences (Prosser and Ziegler), and two dissents/concurrences (Abrahamson and Crooks). It contains almost nothing of relevance to ordinary criminal law practice. However, in the interest of helping orient readers who may want to look more closely at the decision, below the break is a summary of the major issues and how the various opinions address them.

Elonis v. United States, USSC No. 13-983, 2015 WL 2464051 (June 1, 2015), reversing United States v. Elonis, 730 F.3d 321 (3rd Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

This case involved a prosecution of Elonis for threats he made in postings on his Facebook page, and it was being widely watched for the First Amendment question it raised. But the Court sidestepped the constitutional question, and holds instead that 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), the federal statute he was prosecuted under, requires the government to prove some sort of mental state regarding the threatening nature of the communication.