On Point blog, page 15 of 16
Notice of Mandatory Minimum
State v. Harry Thompson, 2009AP1505-CR, District 4, 11/24/10, reversed, 2012 WI 90
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication), reversed 2012 WI 90; for Thompson: J.P. La Chapelle; State BiC; Thompson Resp.; Reply; State Supp.; Thompson Supp.
Failure of the charging document to provide Thompson with notice that he faced a mandatory minimum confinement (25 years on each count) didn’t violate due process.
Interrogation – Ambiguous Request for Counsel; Joinder/Severance; Evidence – Autopsy Photos
State v. Adamm D.J. Linton, 2010 WI App 129; for Linton: Joseph E. Redding; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Interrogation – Ambiguous Request for Counsel
Initial custodial questioning terminated when Linton invoked his right to silence. During subsequent re-interrogation, Linton said, “when I asked for a lawyer earlier, why wasn’t he appointed to me?” The detective indicated that if Linton was asking for a lawyer then the police would “just stop talking to”
Evidence – Daubert; Discovery – Witness Notes; Briefs – Argumentation and SCRs; Closing Argument – Failure to Object; Ineffective Assistance – Failure to Investigate; Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. Christopher D. Jones, 2010 WI App 133; for Jones: Amelia L. Bizzaro; for Amicus, Innocence Network: Jerome F. Buting; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Amicus Br.
Evidence – Daubert – Bullet Traced to Particular Gun
The court rejects “a blanket rule barring as a matter of course all testimony purporting to tie cartridge cases and bullets to a particular gun”:
¶22 Unlike in the federal system,
State v. Mark W. Sterling, 2009AP815-CR, District I, 5/4/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sterling: Dianne M. Erickson; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Charging Decision – Judicial Involvement
Increase in the charge, following trial judge’s veiled suggestion to the prosecutor that such an increase would be appropriate, wasn’t occasioned by judicial interference with prosecutorial discretion, ¶¶16-22.
Initially charged with first-degree reckless injury, Sterling was ultimately convicted on an amended charge of attempted first-degree intentional homicide.
State v. Janet A. Conner, 2008AP1296-CR, Wis SCt review grant, 3/16/10
decision below: 2009 WI App 143; for Conner: Steven J. House
Issues:
What degree of specificity is required in charging dates of allege conduct in a criminal information to satisfy the accused’s constitutional due process rights of notice of the charged offenses?
Does Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(b) require that the state prove that a “course of conduct,” constituting two or more acts, occur after the operative prior conviction in order to establish a violation of the aggravated stalking offense?
Warrants – Overbreadth – John Doe Subpoena for Computer Records
Custodian of Records for Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, on reconsideration 2004 WI 149
Issue/Holding:
¶34. When we review a John Doe subpoena, a foundational issue may be constitutional in nature. For example, does the issuance of a subpoena in a John Doe proceeding, the sole purpose of such proceeding being to investigate alleged criminal activity, have the potential to affect Fourth Amendment rights?
Rebuttal Witness – Test for “Bona Fide” Rebuttal
State v. Juan M. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, PFR filed 5/6/09
For Sandoval: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The State need not disclose bona fide rebuttal evidence, the test for which turns on whether the evidence “only became necessary at rebuttal” (as opposed to whether it would have been admissible or useful in the State’s case-in-chief), ¶¶30-34.
¶33 We are convinced that the State satisfied the law of Wisconsin in this case.
Prohibition — John Doe Proceeding
State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification
For Subpoenaed Individual: Stephen P. Hurley, Marcus J. Berghahn, Hal Harlowe
Issue/Holding:
¶15 A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that normally will not issue except in the absence of other adequate remedies. [6]As a remedy, writs of prohibition are often used in connection with John Doe proceedings.
Legislative Privilege, § 13.96 – “Confidential” Distinguished from “Privileged”
Custodian of Records for Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, reconsideration denied, 2004 WI 149
Issue/Holding:
¶11 Wahl contends that Wis. Stat. § 13.96, as it interacts with Wis. Stat. § 905.01, creates a statutory privilege that, while not expressly stated, is implicit in LTSB’s obligation to treat all information within its possession as confidential. Therefore, as the legal custodian of the information stored by the LTSB,
Supervisory Writ — John Doe Proceeding, Review of
State ex rel Unnamed Persons v. State, 2003 WI 30
For Unnamed Persons: Franklyn M. Gimbel, et al.
Issue/Holding:
¶48. On balance, we conclude that Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 5(3), read together with the language in Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2) and in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.51(1) including “other person or body,” is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.