On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Jacqueline Robinson, 2014 WI 35, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

From the majority opinion, this looks like an open and shut case. When sentencing Robinson, the trial judge said he misunderstood the sentence she had received in another matter. One day later, he recalled the case and increased the sentence. No double jeopardy violation here, says the majority, Robinson could not yet have had a legitimate expectation of finality in her sentence. The 28-page concurrence and 20-page dissent suggest this case isn’t so simple.

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Peter J. Thompson, 2014 WI 25; case activity

The supreme court rejects OLR’s attempt to discipline a lawyer who disclosed confidential client information in advance of a Machner hearing, finding the context in which the disclosure was made to be “of critical importance” to its determination (¶26) while also reminding lawyers to “proceed with caution when considering disclosure of confidential client information in response to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel” (¶1).

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Daniel W. Johns, Jr., 2014 WI 32; case activity

Because OLR was actually informed of an attorney’s felony conviction, the attorney’s failure to notify OLR of the conviction in writing under SCR 21.15(5) is “too technical” a violation to justify discipline. In addition, the nature of the conviction didn’t adversely reflect on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, so discipline was not merited under SCR 20:8.4(b).

On review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to a search of a home conducted in reliance on a search warrant that was itself based on a search by a drug-sniffing dog that violated Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013)?

On review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court’s violation of Harrison’s right to substitution under § 971.20 deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over the case and render the judgment void, or can the violation be deemed to be harmless error?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is revisiting State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, 332 Wis. 2d 620, 796 N.W2d 741, a splintered decision (4 different rationales) with an impenetrable rule.  In this case, the State obtained two statements from the defendant after he had appeared at arraignment with appointed counsel.  The issue is whether the State violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

On review of published court of appeals decisions: Alger, 2013 WI App 148; Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9; case activity: Alger; Knipfer

Issues (composed by On Point)

Does the filing of a petition for discharge or supervised release under ch. 980 after the effective date of the adoption of 2011 Wisconsin Act 2 “commence” an action or proceeding such that the Daubert standard for expert witness testimony applies to the discharge or supervised release proceeding?

If the filing of a discharge or supervised release petition after the effective date of Act 2 does not commence a new proceeding, does it violate due process or equal protection to refuse to apply the Daubert standard to the proceedings on those petitions?

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Whether a juvenile “refused to respond or cooperate” during a portion of a custodial interrogation if it was going to be recorded, such that § 938.31(3)(c)1. allowed the interrogating officers to turn off the recording device.

Whether an error in failing to record a portion of the custodial interrogation requires exclusion of the statements that were recorded.

State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, 5/23/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Section 973.015 provides that a circuit court “may order at the time of sentencing that the record be expunged upon successful completion of the sentence  . . .” SCOW now clarifies that a court must decide expunction at sentencing.  Circuit court practices varied, so this decision clarifies the law and sets the stage for (possibly) a bigger battle over Wisconsin’s expunction statute.

State ex rel. Ardonis Greer v. Wayne J. Widenhoeft, 2014 WI 19, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity; Majority opinion:  Justice Ziegler; Dissent: Justice Bradley and C.J. Abrahamson

The DOC assured Greer his probation was over and issued a discharge certificate to that effect.  In truth, his probation term hadn’t yet expired.  So when he committed new crimes, the DOC revoked his probation.  The Majority rejects Greer’s claims that the DOC: (1) lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation, (2) denied due process, and (3) is subject to equitable estoppel.