On Point: 30. Pretrial proceedings

State v. Clifton Robinson, 2014AP1575-CR, 3/31/15, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs and docket

The court of appeals here rejects a barrage of challenges to Robinson’s conviction for criminal damage to property and armed robbery with use of force–everything from a Batson challenge, to severance issues, to the sufficiency of evidence, to the admission of prejudicial evidence and more.

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point)

Should State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993), and State v. Green, 2002 WI 68, 253 Wis. 2d 536, 646 N.W.2d 298, be overruled?

If the Shiffra/Green rule is not discarded, should the rule be modified to allow a witness to testify even if he or she refuses to disclose the confidential records the defendant is seeking?

State v. Derek J. Copeland, 2014AP929-CR, 3/5/15, District 4 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs

This case explores the line between a between a “simple defense” defined as “I was last at the scene of the crime on a date that preceded the crime” versus an “alibi” defense defined as “I was at a different location and unable to get to the scene of the crime on the date it occurred.”

State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2013AP1615-CR, District 1, 1/27/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Gonzalez-Villarreal’s challenge to his conviction for possessing child pornography based on claims that: his right to a speedy trial was violated; discovery restrictions violated his right to equal protection; other acts evidence was erroneously admitted; the trial court rejected his modified jury instruction on possession; the court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion.

State v. Robert J. Tisland, 2012AP1570-CR, District 4, 1/22/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity

Even if two legislative acts made inconsistent changes to a criminal statute and meant the changes made by the earlier act were superseded by the later one, a charge filed under the provisions of the superseded act was not, under the circumstances of this case, a charge for a crime unknown to law that deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction or competency; instead, it was a technical charging error that didn’t prejudice the defendant.

Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson, Nos. 2013AP2504-2508-W; case activity (for 2013AP2504); Two Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson, No. 2014AP296-OA; case activity; and Schmitz v. Peterson, Nos. 2014AP417-421-W; case activity (for 2014AP417)

The supreme court has granted review in some of the John Doe investigations into coordination of spending by candidate campaigns and independent groups. The long and varied list of issues presented (below the jump) is taken directly from the court’s order, which also includes directions regarding the briefing schedule, word limits, filings under seal, redaction and confidentiality of documents in the record in compliance with any secrecy orders. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Prosser concur in the grants, but write separately (pp. 7-12) to raise various legal and practical questions. Justice Bradley is not participating for reasons given in a letter appended to the order (pp. 15-18).

State v. Patrick J. Lynch, 2015 WI App 2, petition for review granted 3/16/15, affirmed by a divided court, 2016 WI 66; case activity

Lynch was entitled to an in camera review of the complainant’s treatment records because there is a reasonable likelihood the records will reveal the complainant exhibits ongoing symptoms associated with PTSD that affect her ability to recall and describe pertinent events, and that she failed to report Lynch’s alleged sexual abuse of her to treatment providers, at least as a child.

Lopez v. Smith, USSC No. 13-946, 10/6/14 (per curiam), reversing Smith v. Lopez, 731 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2013); docket

When a state prisoner seeks federal habeas relief on the ground that a state court, in adjudicating a claim on the merits, misapplied federal law, a federal court may grant relief only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We have emphasized, time and again, that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), … prohibits the federal courts of appeals from relying on their own precedent to conclude that a particular constitutional principle is “clearly established.” …. Because the Ninth Circuit failed to comply with this rule, we reverse its decision granting habeas relief to respondent Marvin Smith. (Slip op. at 1).

State v. Deshun Latrell Bannister, 2013AP2679-CR, District 1, 9/3/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely alibi notice founders on the lack of prejudice, as there’s nothing in the record showing what the alibi witness would have said had she been allowed to testify.

State v. Andrew M. Obriecht, 2014AP445-CR, District 4, 8/14/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Obriecht didn’t show the victim’s mental health records might contain relevant information necessary to his defense, so the circuit court properly denied his motion to conduct an in camera review of the records.