On Point: B. Opinions

State v. Jeffrey C. Denny, 2017 WI 17, reversing a published court of appeals decision; 2015AP202-CR, 2/28/2017; case activity (including briefs)

In State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115, 284 Wis. 2d 24, 700 N.W.2d 884, the supreme court unanimously held that Wis. Stat. § 974.07, the postconviction DNA testing statute, provides two routes for a convicted defendant seeking exoneration: a defendant satisfying certain basic criteria may pay for his own testing of physical evidence; one making a stronger showing of potential significance may secure such testing at public expense. The court now closes off the first, self-paid route.

Voces de La Frontera, Inc. v. David A Clarke, Jr., 2017 WI 16, reversing a published court of appeals opinion, 2/24/107; case activity (including briefs)

Voces filed an open records request for immigration detainer forms (aka I-247 forms) for persons held at the Milwaukee County Jail. It wanted to confirm that Sheriff Clarke was following federal law governing the deportation of immigrants. See Journal Sentinel story. When Clarke provided only redacted forms, Voces sued for full disclosure and won at the circuit court and the court of appeals. SCOW now reverses in a decision the dissent calls a loss for the people of Wisconsin and their longstanding commitment to open government.

State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2017 WI 15, affirming a published court of appeals decision; 2014AP2981-CR, 2/23/2017; case activity (including briefs)

On June 30, 2013, Wisconsin enacted its biennial budget bill. Among its provisions were changes to the DNA surcharge applied to criminal convictions in Wisconsin. The $250 surcharge became mandatory rather than discretionary for all felonies (rather than just a few as previously), and would now be applied on a per-count basis rather than once per case. The bill also created a new, mandatory $200-per-count surcharge for misdemeanors.

State v. Rozerick E. Mattox, 2017 WI 9, on certification from the court of appeals, 2015AP158-CR, 2/14/17; case activity (including briefs)

S.D. was found dead in circumstances strongly suggestive of a drug overdose. The police summoned the medical examiner, who eventually performed an autopsy. The examiner sent samples from S.D.’s body to a lab in another state for toxicology testing, which revealed the presence of chemicals indicating a heroin overdose. Mattox, eventually charged with delivering the fatal heroin, claims his Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated when the state introduced the toxicology report through the medical examiner, rather than the lab analyst who performed the testing.

State v. Christopher Joseph Allen, 2017 WI 7, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2014AP2840-CR, 2/9/17 ; case activity (including briefs)

State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341 held that a sentencing court may consider all facts underlying an expunged record of conviction provided those facts are not obtained from the expunged court records. This case extends Leitner by holding that a sentencing court may consider a defendant’s successful completion of probation in a prior case where his conviction was expunged pursuant to §973.015.

State v. Patrick Kozel, 2017 WI 3, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision,  2016AP656-CR, 1/12/16; case activity (including briefs)

Kozel, arrested for OWI-2^nd and subjected to a blood draw by an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) at a county jail, challenged the draw as violating §343.305(5)(b) (2011-12) and as unconstitutional, because  it was not performed  “by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” ¶43, citing to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771 (1966).

Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2,1/6/17,  affirming a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

It’s true. SCOW’s first decision on §907.02(1), which adopted the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony is 134 pages long and includes 4 separate opinions, but don’t despair. It’s not the mess you imagine. Reading the first 3 opinions by Abrahamson (joined by A.W. Bradley), Ziegler (solo) and Gableman (joined by Roggensack) feels like the kids’ game “spot the difference between these pictures.” They are more alike than different. You might even wonder why the 5 of them couldn’t just sign on to 1 majority opinion. Or you might not. Bottom line: 5 justices affirmed the admission of a medical doctor’s expert testimony even though it was based on his personal experience, not science.

Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2016 WI 100, 12/28/16, reversing a summary disposition of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

Before the November 2014 election, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin filed an open records request for videos of two training presentations made by Brad Schimel, the DA running for Attorney General. The Department of Justice denied the request, but a circuit judge ordered the videos to be released, and the court of appeals affirmed that order. In an opinion that will arguably enhance the ability of prosecutors to deny release of their records—or, as the dissent aptly describes it, will dim or even shut out some of the light meant to be shed by Wisconsin’s “Sunshine Law”—a majority of the supreme court holds the videos don’t have to be released.

State v. Richard L. Weber, 11/29/16, 2016 WI 96, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision, 2014AP304-CR; case activity (including briefs)

A deputy activates his emergency lights upon seeing a car with a defective brake lamp weave over a highway fog line. The car slows for 100 feet, turns right into a driveway, and pulls into a garage attached to a house.  The deputy apprehends the driver inside the garage.  Was there a 4th Amendment violation? 

OLR v. John Kenyatta Riley, 2016 WI 70, 7/15/16; case activity (including briefs)

Leaving us with another splintered decision as the current term comes to its end, a majority of the supreme court votes to publicly reprimand an attorney for “offering” false testimony from his client and then failing to take reasonable measures to correct the testimony. The precedential value of the opinion is uncertain, and perhaps nil, as there’s no majority rationale for the decision and it involves a previous version of the relevant ethical rule; nonetheless, every lawyer who calls witnesses should be aware of it and contemplate what it might portend.