On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, affirming 2002 WI App 293, 259 Wis. 2d. 455, 655 N.W.2d 131
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue1: Whether the trial court must advise a guilty plea defendant personally on the record that the court isn’t bound by a plea agreement, and ascertain whether the defendant understands this information.
Holding1:

¶27 In Wisconsin,

State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin

Issue/Holding:

¶39 … (A)ppellate courts are sensitive to judicial intervention by a trial judge in the form of judicial witnesses and judicial questioning ….

¶40 … We have always recognized judicial authority to call and interrogate witnesses but simultaneously admonished caution against judicial abuse.

State v. Victor K. Johnson, 2004 WI 94, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals

Issue: Whether the State impermissibly cross-examined the defendant about the truthfulness of another witness.

Holding:

¶2. We conclude that the purpose and effect of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Johnson was to impeach Johnson’s credibility, not to bolster the credibility of another witness, because both Johnson and the other witness were testifying to their personal observations about the same events.

State v. Ervin Burris, 2004 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 262, 258 Wis. 2d. 454, 654 N.W.2d 866
For Burris: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue: Whether, on revocation of supervised release of a sexually violent person, § 980.06(2)(d) (1997-98),  the circuit “court must, for any reason, expressly consider alternatives to revocation before revoking supervised release when the court determines that the safety of others requires revocation,

State v. Nancy R. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals, affirmed on habeas review, Lamon v. Boatwright, 7th Cir No. 05-4018, 11/8/06
For Lamon: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: A trial judge is not required to make detailed findings in ruling on a Batson issue, ¶76.

Issue/Holding: That a prospective juror’s last name “is a well-known criminal name” in the locality,

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification
For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: In essence, this court is presented with the question of whether a custodial inculpatory statement, obtained without proper Miranda warnings, and extracted through the use of police deception, is an “involuntary” self-incriminatory statement and inadmissible at trial for any purpose,” ¶95. (The police ruse involved inducing Knapp into talking by telling him that they were investigating constitutional violations committed by the department when they were in fact investigating Knapp’s involvement in a homicide.)

Holding: Given Knapp’s intelligence,

State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion
For Hoppe: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶46. Both Connelly and Clappes support the proposition that some coercive or improper police conduct must exist in order to sustain a finding of involuntariness. However, both of these cases also recognize that police conduct does not need to be egregious or outrageous in order to be coercive.

State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion
For Hoppe: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Under “somewhat unique” facts, a suspect’s statements made during interviews in a hospital over a three-day period while delusional and in the throes of acute alcohol withdrawal were involuntary despite the absence of any egregious police pressure. ¶¶47-59.

As suggested, this case is highly fact-specific,

State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals; habeas relief denied, Lo v. Endicott, 7th Cir No. 06-3948, 10/26/07
For Lo: Robert R. Henak
Amicus Briefs: Joseph N. Ehmann, Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD; Meredith J. Ross, Walter J. Dickey, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The petitioner, Anou Lo, asks that we overrule our decision in State v.

State v. Larry G. Edwards, 2003 WI 68, reversing unpublished summary order of court of appeals
For Edwards: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, after the trial court dismissed a criminal case due to violation of intrastate detainer act time limits, the state’s motion for reconsideration was supported by a “new issue,” namely whether the dismissal was with prejudice.

Holding: “We conclude that the State raised a ‘new issue’