On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Juan M. Navarro, 2001 WI App 225
For Navarro: Joseph M. Moore, SPD Trial, Juneau

Issue: Whether the trial court is required to conduct an in camera inspection of confidential records of the complaining witness, a correctional officer, relating to his possible abusive treatment of inmates, in a battery-by-prisoner trial where the defendant alleges self-defense.

Holding: The trial court’s denial of in camera inspection without first conducting an evidentiary hearing on materiality was erroneous: Access may not be denied simply because the records aren’t within the state’s possession;

State v. Lance R. Ward, 2000 WI 3, 231 Wis.2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517, reversing State v. Ward, 222 Wis. 2d 311, 588 N.W.2d 645.For Ward: Daniel P. Dunn

Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule applies where the police relied on judge-made law that automatically countenanced all no-knock entries to search for drugs and that law was subsequently overturned.

Holding: Police action in good faith reliance on supreme court pronouncements insulate that conduct from the exclusionary rule.

State v. Vanessa D. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, reversing unpublished decision, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (2001).
For Hughes: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Issue: Whether Hughes voluntarily consented to a search of her person.

Holding: By verbally consenting and affirmatively assisting the police by lifting her skirt, Hughes did more than merely acquiesce to the search.

State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an equivocal declaration of impartiality by a prospective juror is enough to establish subjective bias, given a trial court’s finding to the contrary.

Holding: The issue of a prospective juror’s subjective bias is reviewed on appeal through “a very deferential lens”;

State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the 980 subject suffered from a qualifying mental disorder, given that the experts split on the issue.

Holding:

¶15 Pletz argues that the two psychologists who testified on his behalf offered more credible testimony,

State v. Rovaugn Hill, 2000 WI App 259, 240 Wis.2d 1, 622 N.W.2d 34
For Hill: Gerald P. Boyle

Issue: Whether reprosecution should be barred on double jeopardy grounds, because prosecutorial overreaching had caused a mistrial.

Holding: “[D]ouble jeopardy bars a retrial when the defendant has successfully moved for a mistrial, if the prosecutor acted with intent to gain another chance to convict or to harass the defendant with multiple prosecutions.”

State v. Kenneth M. Herrmann, 2000 WI App 38, 233 Wis. 2d 135, 608 N.W.2d 406
For Herrmann: Peter J. Morin

Issue: Whether officers executing a search warrant for Landis’s apartment exceeded the scope of the warrant when they entered and searched Herrmann’s separate residential unit on the same floor.

Holding: The officers neither knew nor had reason to know that there were two apartments on the floor being searched,

State v. Kenneth M. Herrmann, 2000 WI App 38, 233 Wis. 2d 135, 608 N.W.2d 406
For Herrmann: Peter J. Morin

Issue: Whether consent to search was valid, immediately following unlawful entry of the occupant’s apartment.

Holding: Given the “coercive circumstances” – entry in middle of night, with officers yelling “search warrant” – any consent Herrmann may have given was neither voluntary nor attenuated from the illegal entry.

State v. Frank Curiel, 227 Wis.2d 389, 597 N.W.2d 697 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Curiel: Jack. C. Hoag, Sedor & Hoag.

Issue/Holding: “¶7 Is the verdict of the court supported by the evidence? We hold that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the commitment of the defendant under Wis. Stat. ch. 980.” The testimony of a single expert witness that Curiel was much more likely than not to reoffend suffices to uphold the commitment (even though that witness did not personally interview Curiel).

State v. Fredrick J. Brissette, 230 Wis.2d 82, 601 N.W.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Brissette: John D, Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether failure to hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours of the filing of a Ch. 980 petition causes the court to lose competency to proceed.

Holding: The 72-hour requirement for conducting the probable cause hearing does not begin running if the subject is in custody pursuant to independent process,