On Point blog, page 2 of 2
No relief in TPR
Taylor County DHHS v. S.A.L., 2016AP2369, 6/7/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.A.L. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children. She alleges ineffective assistance of her trial counsel and that the court failed to properly exercise discretion during the dispositional phase. The court of appeals affirms.
SCOW’s maiden decision on Daubert is split 2-1-2-2
Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2,1/6/17, affirming a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
It’s true. SCOW’s first decision on §907.02(1), which adopted the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony is 134 pages long and includes 4 separate opinions, but don’t despair. It’s not the mess you imagine. Reading the first 3 opinions by Abrahamson (joined by A.W. Bradley), Ziegler (solo) and Gableman (joined by Roggensack) feels like the kids’ game “spot the difference between these pictures.” They are more alike than different. You might even wonder why the 5 of them couldn’t just sign on to 1 majority opinion. Or you might not. Bottom line: 5 justices affirmed the admission of a medical doctor’s expert testimony even though it was based on his personal experience, not science.
Appellate Procedure: Waiver (Lesser Offense Instruction) – Binding Authority (Overruled Court of Appeals Decision); Counsel: Deficient Performance – Unsettled Law; Voluntary Statements; Adult Jurisdiction over Juvenile: Post-Trial Reverse Waiver Procedure Constitutional
State v. Darron D. Jackson, 2011 WI App 63 (recommended for publication); for Jackson: Rebecca Lawnicki; case activity
Waiver – Lesser Offense Instruction
The jury convicted Jackson of recklessly endangering safety while armed, which was submitted as a lesser offense of the charged offense, attempted first-degree intentional homicide. Although Jackson did object to the endangering instruction on the ground that it wasn’t supported by the facts,
State v. Alexander Marinez, 2010 WI App 34
court of appeals decision; for Marinez: David Leeper; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Appellate Procedure – Waiver and Effective Assistance of Counsel
¶12 n. 12:
Although Marinez argues ineffective assistance of counsel, he also asks that we review his statutory and due process arguments directly. He cites to State v. Anderson, 2006 WI 77,
Closing Argument: Prosecutorial Misconduct – Interest-of-Justice Review
State v. Clifford D. Bvocik, 2010 WI App 49; for Bvocik: James C. Murray
Prosecutorial Misconduct – Closing Argument
Improper prosecutorial closing argument—encouraging jury to draw false inference—requires new trial in interest of justice; State v. Robert H. Weiss, Jr., 2008 WI App 72, controlling:
¶1 State v. Weiss, 2008 WI App 72, ¶¶15-17, 312 Wis. 2d 382,
State v. Roosevelt M. Williams, 2009AP205-CR, Dist I, 1/26/10
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication)
Closing Argument – Arbitrary Time Limit
30-minute time limit on defense closing upheld, ¶¶20-24. Moreover, majority not persuaded that closing counsel never had opportunity to make would have persuaded jury, ¶25-26. Judge Fine dissents, stressing significance to trial process of closing argument, ¶¶27-32.