On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: The attorney-client privilege shields statements from attorney to client, such as billing records only to the extent that disclosure would “reveal[] the substance of lawyer-client communications.” ¶40. The undisputed record here shows that the sought billing records “contain detailed descriptions of the nature of the legal services rendered to [the client]. Producing the attorney billing records would,

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: A former officer and director of a corporation is not entitled to waive the corporation’s attorney-client privilege, even with regard to information generated during the person’s corporate tenure. Under the “entity rule,” the privilege belongs solely to the corporation, and only the corporation may waive it. ¶¶33-35.

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: Although a mere allegation is insufficient, the burden for establishing a prima facie case of the attorney-client crime-fraud exception is low — reasonable cause (i.e., more than suspicion but less than preponderance-of-evidence) to believe that the attorney’s services were utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme. ¶50, quoting United States v. Chen,

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold

Issue/Holding: The court modifies the threshold showing required for an in camerainspection, in favor of “a slightly higher standard,” namely a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the records will be necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence.”¶32.

¶34. Based on the above considerations,

State v. John T. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, affirming unpublished decision
For Trochinski: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the defendant met his burden of showing a prima facie case that he didn’t understand an element of the offense to which he pleaded guilty.

Holding:

¶22. Wisconsin’s courts have been relying on Bangert since it was written in 1986,

State v. Joseph F. Rizzo, 2002 WI 20, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 57, 241 Wis. 2d 241, 624 N.W.2d 854
For Rizzo: Franklyn M. Gimbel

Issue: Whether the prosecution opened the door to otherwise privileged “Shiffra” evidence.

Holding:

¶51. Before trial, the circuit court found that there was nothing relevant in D.F.’s treatment records that was not also in Dr.

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Williams satisfied the unavailability requirement necessary to admit a declarant’s against-interest hearsay statement exculpating the defendant, § 908.045(4).

Holding: Unavailability is determined by § 908.04(1)(e), and requires a “good-faith effort” and due diligence” in attempting to secure the declarant’s presence, ¶62.

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue:/Holding: The exclusion of hearsay evidence proffered by the defense is tested under the “two-part framework” of State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, ¶51, or “whether the proffered evidence was ‘essential to’ the defense, and whether without the proffered evidence, the defendant had ‘no reasonable means of defending his case.’”

State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9
For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan

Issue/Holding:

¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed in issue by the trial evidence,

State v. Ervin Burris, 2004 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 262, 258 Wis. 2d. 454, 654 N.W.2d 866For Burris: Joseph L. SommersIssue: Whether a condition of supervised release, that Burris “avoid all conduct … that is not in the best interest of the public’s welfare or your rehabilitation” provided adequate notice that obtaining a prescription for Viagra would subject him to revocation.

Holding:

¶53.