On Point blog, page 16 of 790

In complicated habeas appeal, 7th circuit affirms and holds that failure to preserve evidence does not entitle petitioner to relief

Karl W. Nichols v. Lance Wiersma, No. 22-3059, 7/16/24

In a complicated case that contains many harsh lessons about the standards applicable to habeas petitions, the Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief as the exculpatory value of unpreserved evidence was not “apparent.”

SCOTUS Wrap-up

In addition to the SCOTUS cases to which we devoted individual posts (Smith v. Arizona, Erlinger v. U.S., U.S. v. Rahimi, Garland v. Cargill), below is a summary of criminal or criminal-adjacent cases decided by SCOTUS in the 2023-24 term that we consider of interest to criminal practice in Wisconsin state courts.

COA affirms denial of reverse waiver and motion for discovery prior to § 970.032(1) preliminary examination despite holding that juvenile defendants have a (limited) right to discovery

State v. Jayden Adams, 2023AP218-CR, 7/23/24, District 1 (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25, voluntarily dismissed 3/5/25, case activity

Adams appealed a nonfinal order denying his motion for discovery prior to his Wis. Stat. § 970.032(1) preliminary examination and his motion for reverse waiver to juvenile court. Despite holding that juvenile defendants have a limited right to discovery before a prelim under State v. Klesser, 2010 WI 88, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144, the COA concludes that Adams was not entitled to the discovery he requested in this case. The COA also concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the reverse waiver.

COA affirms circuit court’s order denying TPR defendant’s request for new counsel.

Portage County v. W.P.R., 2024AP454, 7/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court’s order denying defendant’s request for new counsel in TPR case.

Seventh Circuit cases for June

June brought several interesting criminal-law related cases, including two Fourth Amendment challenges involving THC in our changed legal landscape, a discussion of whether a crime forbidding the impersonation of police is unconstitutional, and a challenge to a conviction for lying on firearm purchase paperwork under the Second Amendment.

HUGE Defense Win: SCOW overrules S.L.L. and reverses default judgment in Chapter 51 appeal

Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2024 WI 30, 7/5/24, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In a big defense win, 6 justices agree that M.A.C. is entitled to relief, with four justices joining together to dismantle SCOW’s prior decision in S.L.L. with respect to notice and default judgment in Chapter 51 proceedings.

COA: Driver does not have right under implied consent statute to refuse blood test when driver proposes to take breath or urine test.

City of Mequon v. Schumacher, 2023AP2411, 7/3/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA determines person suspected of driving under the influence does not have right under implied consent statute, Wis. Stat.  § 343.305, to refuse blood test if the person offers to take a breath or urine test instead.

In a refreshingly straightforward statutory construction case, SCOW upholds defense TPR win

State v. R.A.M., 2024 WI 26, 6/25/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In a 5-2 defense win, SCOW concludes that a statute requiring the circuit court to wait two days before proceeding to disposition after finding a parent in default means what it says.

SCOTUS addresses half of the Confrontation Clause analysis on substitute expert testimony; holds such testimony is generally hearsay

Smith v. Arizona, USSC No. 22-899, 6/21/2024, vacating and remanding Arizona v. Smith, No. 1CA-CR 21-0451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022) (unreported); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

SCOTUS unanimously holds that expert witness testimony restating an absent lab analyst’s factual assertions to support his or her own opinion is hearsay. However, the Court declined to address the second part of the Confrontation Clause test, whether the underlying evidence was testimonial, as the issue was undeveloped in this case.

In a sequel to its previous decision in A.G., SCOW holds that parent is not entitled to plea withdrawal or new dispo hearing; leaves other issues open

State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, 6/27/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In a closely-watched TPR appeal, SCOW issues a decision that leaves many open questions regarding the vexing “burden of proof” issue that has ensnarled lower courts.