On Point: 23. Judge

court of appeals decision; for Carter: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Ex Parte Judicial Questioning, Pretrial Proceeding
Pretrial judicial questioning of a witness at return of a bench warrant worked deprivation of the defendant’s rights to counsel and presence at trial when the witness was subsequently impeached with statements she made during that exchange, ¶¶17-21. The error, though occurring but once and limited to impeachment,

supreme court “decision” (court splits 3-3); for Allen: Robert R. Henak

Recusal – Individual Supreme Court Justice – Reviewability
The question of whether a claim of bias against one Justice (Gableman) is reviewable by the full court fails to yield a majority. The court splits 3-3 (Justice Gableman not participating), in a total of 5 separate opinions (3 would assume jurisdiction to review claim and would order full briefing on merits of claim;

Memorandum Decision (per Roggensack, J.)

Disqualification, § 757.19(2)(e)

Justice Roggensack isn’t disqualified under § 757.19(2)(e) from participating in Henley’s pending appeal, even though as a court of appeals judge she decided the separate appeal of Henley’s jointly tried codefendant Adams.

¶23  …  I conclude that disqualification/recusal is directed under Wis. Stat. § 757.19(2)(e) only when the same defendant in the action or proceeding on which an appellate judge has already participated as a judge is once again before a court on which the same judge is serving.

State v. Brian K. Goodson, 2009 WI App 107
For Goodson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶9        Objective bias can exist in two situations. The first is where there is the appearance of bias, Gudgeon, 295 Wis. 2d 189, ¶¶23-24. “[T]he appearance of bias offends constitutional due process principles whenever a reasonable person—taking into consideration human psychological tendencies and weaknesses—concludes that the average judge could not be trusted to ‘hold the balance nice,

State v. Brian K. Goodson, 2009 WI App 107
For Goodson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The reconfinement judge should have recused himself, given that at original disposition he threatened to impose the maximum if the defendant was returned to court on revocation; State v. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, deemed controlling:

¶12      The same analysis applies here.

State v. William Allen Wisth, 2009 WI App 53, PFR filed 4/29/09
For Wisth: Jeremy Perri, SPD, MilwaukeeAppellate

Issue/Holding: Defendant not entitled to request substitution of judge assigned to sentencing following revocation; § 971.20(5) is limited to pre-guilt phases:

¶14   We conclude that the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. § 971.20(5) is that substitution is permitted only prior to trial. When the issue of guilt or lack of guilt is resolved,

State ex rel. Adrian T. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, affirmed, 2008 WI 67, ¶48 n. 7 (reconsideration denied, 2008 WI 118)
Pro se

Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4:

We are disturbed by Reddin’s presumption to give, and Judge Murray’s acquiescence to receive, Reddin’s ex parte advice about the scope of Hipp’s ability to have issued subpoenas for the production of his witnesses at the John Doe hearing,

State v. Justin D. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, PFR filed 7/14/06
For Gudgeon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶10      A biased tribunal, like the lack of counsel, constitutes a “structural error.” See id. at 8; Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955, 961 (7th Cir. 2005); State v. Carprue,

State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, given the trial judge’s statement at sentencing that defendant’s counsel had in fact provided competent representation, established prejudgment of the issue such that recusal was required for the subsequent postconviction assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Holding:

¶35      … (A)bsent a pervasive and perverse animus,

State v. Justin D. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, PFR filed 7/14/06
For Gudgeon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      The second component, the objective test, asks whether a reasonable person could question the judge’s impartiality. Franklin, 398 F.3d at 960; Walberg, 109 Wis. 2d at 106-07 (looks to whether partiality can “reasonably be questioned”).