On Point blog, page 66 of 133
Attorney-Client Relationship – Conflict of Interest
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Nikola P. Kostich, 2010 WI 136
Counsel publicly reprimanded for “a clear conflict of interest,” SCR 20:1.9(a): sexual assault victim had consulted counsel about suing his assailant, and counsel later represented assailant in criminal case involving number of victims including the one who had consulted him. The matters were “the same or … substantially related”; the interests of the subsequent client was “materially adverse”
State v. Rickey R. Denson, 2009AP694-CR, review granted 12/8/10
decision below: summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski; supreme court news release
Issues (from the news release):
- Should the constitutional right of a criminal defendant not to testify on his behalf and remain silent at trial be recognized as a fundamental right that can only be waived personally by the defendant with an on the record colloquy?
- Should the only appropriate remedy, for failure to engage in an on-the-record colloquy regarding the right not to testify at trial,
Prison Discipline: Certiorari Review – Right to Exculpatory Material – Impartial Fact-Finder
Darnell Jackson v. Buchler, 2010 WI 135, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; for Jackson: Michael Halfenger, et al.; Jackson BiC; Buchler Resp.; Reply; Jackson Br. after remand; Buchler Br. after remand
Certiorari Review – Prison Discipline
Evidence before disciplinary committee, in the form of statements of two confidential informants,
OWI – § 346.65(2), Second or Subsequent Offense: Out-of-State Administrative Non-Refusal (“Zero Tolerance”) Suspension
State v. Gerard W. Carter, 2010 WI 132, reversing 2009 WI App 156; for Carter: Craig M. Kuhary; State BiC; Carter Resp.; Reply
Prior DL suspension under Illinois’ “zero tolerance” law (which suspends or revokes operating privileges of drivers under legal drinking age with any alcohol concentration) satisfies § 343.307(1)(d) and therefore supports OWI enhancement,
Madison Metro. School Dist. v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2009AP2845-W, review granted 10/27/10
decision below: supervisory writ, not posted on-line
Issue (from Table of Cases):
Whether a circuit court, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 120.12(18) (school district has a duty to coordinate and provide continuity of educational programming for pupils receiving education services as the result of a court order under § 938.34(7d)) and § 938.45 (court may take certain actions if the district contributed to delinquency of minor) has the authority to craft an order which would override a school district’s prior determination to expel a juvenile under § 120.13(1)(c)1.
Multiplicity: § 948.40(1) (4)(a) as Lesser of § 940.02(2)(a); Contributing to Delinquency with Death as Result; Instructions – First-Degree Reckless Homicide; Prosecutorial Misconduct – “Haseltine”
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2010 WI 130, affirming 2009 WI App 181; for Patterson: David R. Karpe; Patterson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Multiplicity – § 948.40(1) (4)(a) as Lesser Offense of § 940.02(2)(a)
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor with death as a result, § 948.40(1), (4)(a) is not a lesser offense of first-degree reckless homicide,
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez, 2010 WI App 104, review granted 10/27/10
prior post: here; background summary by court: here
Issues (from Table of Cases):
Whether a pattern jury instruction confused or mislead a jury such that the instructions violated a defendant’s due process rights.
Whether a trial court erred in its handling of a jury’s questions during deliberations.
Whether particular evidence constituted substantial facts sufficient to corroborate the defendant’s alleged statements under the corroboration rule (See State v.
State v. Charles Lamar, 2009 WI App 133, review granted 10/27/10
Prior post: here; background summary by court: here
Issue (from Table of Cases):
Whether, at resentencing, a defendant would be entitled to credit on a new sentence for time spent confined on a vacated sentence, which was served concurrently with another non-vacated sentence, when the new sentence is imposed consecutively to all other sentences (See Wis. Stat. § 973.04).
State v. Brian T. St. Martin, No. 2009AP1209-CR, review granted 10/27/10
decision below: certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; court of appeals briefs: Resp.; Reply
Issue (from Table of Cases):
Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,
State v. Shantell T. Harbor, 2009AP1252-CR, Wis SCt rev granted 9/22/10
decision below: unpublished; for Harbor: Joseph E. Redding; court of appeals briefs: BiC; Resp.; Reply
Issues (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a defendant presented a new factor entitling sentence modification (See State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989).
Whether a defendant demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v.