On Point: Important Posts

State v. Patrick D. Zolliecoffer, 2018AP1639-CR, 8/20/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Zolliecoffer challenged two of the State’s peremptory strikes as racially based. On appeal, the State conceded that the circuit court failed to apply the 3-step procedure for analyzing Batson claims, which On Point recently explained here.  Zolliecoffer urged the court of appeals to remand for a new trial. The State sought a remand to apply Batson. Surprise! The State won.

Winnebago County v. C.S., 2016AP1982, petition for review of a published court of appeals opinion granted 8/15/19; case activity

Issue:

Does Wis. Stat. §51.61(1)(g) violate substantive due process because it does not require a finding of dangerousness to involuntarily medicate a prisoner?

Timothy W. Miller v. Angela L. Carroll, petition to review a published court of appeals decision granted 8/14/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (based on Carroll’s Petition for Review)

1. Does a judge’s acceptance of one party’s Facebook “friend” request by itself overcome the presumption that a judge is fair, impartial, and capable of ignoring any biasing influences, given the absence of any allegation of subjective bias or of facts showing the judge treated the other party unfairly, and when there were no electronic social media (“ESM”) communications between the judge and the party regarding the merits of the case?
2. Does the fact a party “liked” a judge’s Facebook posts unrelated to the pending litigation or commented on a Facebook post unrelated to the pending litigation constitute an ex parte communication between a party and a judge?

We’re a bit slow to report this (we blame the dog days of summer), but on July 31, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Courtney C. Brown, 2019 WI App 34 (extension of stop for seat belt violation to conduct search of car was lawful)

Lueders v.

State v. Malcolm J. Sanders, 2019 WI App 52; case activity (including briefs)

Sanders is black, and the DA struck the only black jurors from serving on his case because, even though they said they could be fair, they had had prior bad experiences with police, including being the subjects of racial profiling. Judges Gundrum and Neubauer held that the DA did not discriminate. But in another “must read” dissent, Judge Reilly said:

It is a perversion of justice to accept the reasoning that because we have unfairly treated blacks (or any class of people), we can then use our wrongful acts to prevent blacks from serving on juries. Utilizing our unfair treatment of blacks as a valid “race neutral” reason to keep blacks off juries is itself discrimination. Dissent, ¶16.

Ozaukee County v. R. C.J. Y., 2019AP297, 8/7/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Many Chapter 51 cases are resolved through 90-settlement agreements entered just before or just after the circuit court holds a probable cause hearing. These settlement agreements are governed by §51.20(8)(bg),(bm) and (br).

State v. Darius Kavonta Smith, 2019AP642 & 643-CR, 8/6/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

During closing arguments, the DA made a sarcastic, belittling reference to public defenders who line up empty chairs to emphasize that the State neglected to call witnesses to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA also commented on witnesses whom Smith had not called. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial because the DA’s belittling of public defenders stigmatized their clients, and his comment about her failure to call witnesses improperly shifted the burden to the defense. The circuit court granted  the mistrial.

State v. Medford B. Matthews, III, 2019 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs)

It’s a crime in Wisconsin to have sex with a person under 18. Specifically, it’s a misdemeanor, if that person is 16 or older—like the 17-and-a-half-year-old alleged victim here. But, it’s tough to have sex without (1) being in a private (or “secluded”) place and (2) exposing one’s genitals. And while the legislature has codified the obvious difference between having sex with,

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2018AP145-FT, petition for review granted 7/10/19; case activity

Issue: 

A doctor opined that David (a pseudonym) is unable to care for himself, and therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am), because he lost employment and relies on the assistance of the government and his family for income and housing. As a matter of law, did the circuit err by concluding that the county, under these circumstances, met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that David is dangerous?

Today Mad in America, a nonprofit that publishes a webzine on science, psychiatry and social justice ran a long article on the dark side of “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” or, as we think of it in Wisconsin, “outpatient recommitments.” Turns out they have a very dark side. Chapter 51 practitioners may find the many studies and surveys linked to in this article helpful in preparing their clients cases.