On Point: 2016-17 Term

Dennis A. Teague v. Brad A. Schimel, 2017 WI 56, 6/8/17, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Dennis Teague has no criminal record, but if you ask DOJ to run a criminal background check on him DOJ will hand over a lengthy rap sheet showing someone else’s criminal history. Why? Because that someone else once used Teague’s name as an alias. The good news is the supreme court holds DOJ is wrong to give out someone else’s history in response to an inquiry about Teague. The bad new is the court can’t agree on the remedy for Teague and others in his situation.

Waukesha County v. J.W.J., 2017 WI 57, 6/8/2017, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 370 Wis. 2d 262, 881 N.W.2d 359; case activity

In Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., which involved a woman with Alzheimer’s disease, SCOW held that a person is a “proper subject for treatment” under §51.20(1) if she can be “rehabilitated.” It then set forth a test for determining whether a mentally ill person has “rehabilitative potential.” In this case, J.W.J. argued that Helen E.F.’s framework should be modified because it does not account for the characteristics of mental illnesses other than Alzheimer’s, such as the one he has–paranoid schizophrenia.

State v. Jack M. Suriano, 2017 WI 42, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2015AP959-CR; case activity (including posts)

In Wisconsin, a defendant can lose his or her right to counsel in two ways: waiver and forfeiture. Waiver is voluntary and requires a colloquy with the defendant. Forfeiture does not.

Three different attorneys accepted State Public Defender (SPD) appointments to represent Jack Suriano. Each, in quick succession, withdrew from representation. After granting the third attorney’s motion to withdraw, the court found that Suriano had forfeited his right to counsel.

State v. Sambath Pal, 2017 WI 44, 4/28/17, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition, 2015AP1782-CR; case activity (including briefs)

Driver crashes into group of motorcyclists, kills one, mortally injures a second, flees the scene, and eventually pleads guilty to 2 counts of hit and run resulting in death contrary to §346.67(1). He’s sentenced to 2 consecutive terms of 10 years IC and 10 years ES. Questions Presented: Did driver commit 1 offense or 2? And is his sentence unduly harsh?

State v. Lemberger, 2017 WI 39, April 20, 2017, affirming a one-judge court of appeals decision; 2017AP1452; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court declares Lemberger’s legal claim “unsettled,” and thus holds his trial counsel did not perform deficiently by not raising it. The court’s opinion, however, fails to present the actual substance of the claim.

State v. Brian Harris, 2017 WI 31, 4/7/17, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2016 WI App 2; case activity (including briefs)

“This freedom from compelled self-incrimination is one of the nation’s ‘most cherished principles.’ Miranda, 384 U.S. at 458. We are sufficiently solicitous of this protection that we guard it by patrolling a generous buffer zone around the central prohibition.” Majority Op. ¶12. That’s the principle in theory. Here’s how it applies in practice.

State v. Stanley J. Maday, Jr., 2017 WI 28, 4/5/17, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision, 2015AP366-CR; case activity (including briefs)

This “he said, she said” case resulted in a verdict finding Maday guilty of child sexual assault.  Catherine Gainey, the social worker who conducted a “cognitive graphic interview” of K.L., the alleged victim, testified at trial that there “was no indication” that K.L. had been coached or was being dishonest. Maday claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not object to this Haseltine evidence. SCOW, voting 5-1-2, nixed that claim. The majority, written by Gableman, says Haseltine does not bar “observations of indications of coaching and deceit” that a social worker makes during the course of a forensic interview.  It only bars an expert’s subjective opinions about a child’s truthfulness. So expect prosecutors to invoke the magic word “indications” early and often. If you feel like shouting “mayday! mayday!” don’t. The majority may have slammed a door on certain objections to Haseltine evidence, but it has unwittingly flung open a window for defense lawyers.

State v. Glenn T. Zamzow, 2017 WI 29, 4/6/17, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

“The Sixth Amendment guarantees that a defendant whose guilt or innocence is at stake at trial may employ the ‘greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.’ …. But the Sixth Amendment does not mandate that statements considered at a suppression hearing face the crucible of cross-examination. Nor does the Due Process Clause demand this. Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not deny Zamzow his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution by relying on an audio recording of a deceased officer’s statement at the suppression hearing.” (¶31).

State v. Jeffrey P. Lepsch, 2017 WI 27, 3/31/17, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion, case activity (including briefs)

This appeal primarily concerns whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (a) object to the seating of biased jurors, and (b) ensure that the trial court properly administered the oath to the venire panel in Lepsch’s presence.  SCOW holds that none of Lepsch’s jurors were biased, and the venire panel was properly sworn. Thus, no ineffective assistance of counsel occurred. Justice Abrahamson’s concurrence acknowledges Wisconsin law governing juror bias appears inconsistent both internally and with federal case law and strives to harmonize it for the bench and the bar.

Ten weeks ago SCOW issued Seifert v. Balink, its first decision interpreting and applying §907.02, the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony. The court split 2-1-2-2 (as in Abrahamson/AW Bradley–Ziegler–Gableman/Roggensack–Kelly/RG Bradley). That generated two On Point posts here and here,  an Inside Track article here and a Wisconsin Lawyer article here.  Today SCOW split 3-3 in Smith v. Kleynerman, which raised two issues regarding the law governing LLCs and a Daubert issue. Click here to see Kleynerman’s brief.