On Point: 2001-02 Term

State ex rel. Gerard Noel Haas v. McReynolds, 2002 WI 43, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision
For Haas: Robert G. Bernhoft

Issue/Holding: By voluntarily dismissing an appeal from denial of a first habeas petition, Haas was estopped from filing a second habeas petition in the court of appeals raising the same issue contained in the first petition. (That is, because Haas had an alternate, adequate remedy to challenging denial of the first petition —

State v. David C. Polashek, 2002 WI 74, affirming in part and reversing in part, 2001 WI App 130
For Polashek: Nila J. Robinson

Issue: Whether the element of “disclosure” in § 48.981(7) requires that the recipient not previously have been aware of the confidential information.

Holding: Given the plain meaning of “disclosure,” as defined by various dictionaries, as well as construciton of the term under the Federal Privacy Act:

¶23.

State v. Glenn E. Davis, 2002 WI 75, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 210, 247 Wis. 2d 917, 634 N.W.2d 922
For Davis: James M. Shellow

Issue/Holding:

¶16. The rules on character evidence and expert testimony allow for the admissibility of Richard A.P. evidence. Under our rules of evidence, a defendant may introduce “pertinent trait[s]”

State v. Michael L. Veach, 2002 WI 110, reversing 2001 WI App 143
For Veach: Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, on charges of sexually assaulting a 7-year old girl, evidence that the defendant had sexually assaulted his 9-year old daughter approximately 11 years earlier was properly admissible.

Holding:

• 1). The evidence was offered for an acceptable purpose,

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.