On Point blog, page 106 of 133
Truthfulness of Another Witness, Comment On — Comment by One Witness on Whether Another Witness “Is Lying”
State v. Victor K. Johnson, 2004 WI 94, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals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.
SVP – Disposition: Supervised Release – Revocation – Consideration of Alternatives to Revocation
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,
Jury – Selection – “Batson” – Judge’s Failure to Make Detailed Findings – Race-Neutral Reasons
State v. Nancy R. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals, affirmed on habeas review, Lamon v. Boatwright, 7th Cir No. 05-4018, 11/8/06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,
Statements – Voluntariness – Police Deception/Promises
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,
Statements – Voluntariness – Police Coercion, Necessity of
State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion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.
Statements – Voluntariness – Suspect’s “Severely Debilitated” Condition Coupled with “Subtle” Police Coercion
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,
§ 974.06 – Viability of Escalona-Naranjo
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.
Motion to Reconsider Trial Ruling – Necessity to Raise “New Issue”
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’
Petition for Review Deadline – Prison Mailbox Rule, Retroactivity
State ex rel Norman O. Brown v. Bradley, 2003 WI 14, on original petition for writ of habeas corpus
For Brown: Greg J. Carman
Issue/Holding:
¶1. The Petitioner, Norman O. Brown, seeks reinstatement of his petition for review which was previously dismissed as untimely filed. Brown contends that this court should apply retroactively the tolling rule for pro se prisoners that it adopted in State ex rel.
Waiver of Argument: Failure to Develop Argument on Appeal
State v. John Norman, 2003 WI 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Norman: Angela Kachelski
Issue/Holding: Norman’s failure on appeal to develop an argument analytically necessary to the issue he raises waives his right to have that issue reviewed. ¶64.