On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW to review whether the admission of admissible evidence warrants a mistrial
State v. Mitchell D. Green, 2021AP267-CR, petition for review of an unpublished COA opinion granted 6/22/22; reversed, 2023 WI 57 case activity (including briefs)
Question presented (from the State’s PFR):
Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion when it concluded that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial after Green introduced unnoticed third-party perpetrator evidence at trial via the testimony of a witness who claimed to have committed the crime but was unrepresented by counsel?
SCOW (again) takes up when the right to counsel attaches
State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-CR, certification granted 5/18/22; case activity (including briefs); ; remanded 5/10/23
Update: This case was remanded back to COA, without a decision. As the order is not available online, we will do our best to update with more information when or if COA issues its decision.
Question presented:
The 4th Amendment requires that a judicial officer determine probable within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991). Milwaukee County complies with this mandate by having the judicial officer review a sworn affidavit from law enforcement and set initial bail. This procedure does not require the accused to appear in person. The judicial officer simply conducts a paper review and completes a CR-215 form. Does this procedure trigger the accused’s right to counsel?
SCOW will address whether prosecutor cured plea agreement breach by restating correct sentencing recommendation
State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2021AP21-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs and PFR)
Issue presented (composed by On Point based on the state’s PFR)
Was the state’s breach of its plea agreement with Nietzold remedied by the prosecutor’s withdrawal of the erroneous recommendation and restatement of the correct recommendation?
SCOW will review Brady’s “material evidence” requirement
State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman, 2020AP226-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 4/13/22; reversed 1/10/23; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from the State’s petition for review)
1. In cases involving credibility contests between a complaining witness (here, S.S.) and the defendant (Hineman), to what extent can a reviewing court reweigh the witnesses’ credibility in assessing whether, based on omitted evidence, there was a reasonable likelihood of a different result under the Brady materiality or Strickland prejudice standards?
2. The court of appeals also reached an abandoned Shiffra/Green issue and ordered in camera review of S.S.’s therapy files from his private therapist because the therapist acted as a mandatory reporter.
CoA says people with mental illness may not choose death over medication
Taylor County Human Services v. L.E., 2021AP1292, 2/15/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A circuit court extended “Luca’s” commitment, directed that he be placed in a locked ward, and ordered involuntary medication. On appeal, Luca challenges his placement in a locked ward and the involuntary medication order. At a minimum, the court of appeals analysis of Luca’s right to refuse involuntary medication merits review by SCOW.
SCOW will address denying ineffective assistance counsel claims without a hearing
State v. Larry Jackson, 2020AP2119-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 1/11/22; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (derived from Jackson’s petition for review):
When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial lawyer’s failure to investigate alibi witnesses, and the State responds that these witnesses have credibility issues, may the circuit court deny the defendant’s claim without a Machner hearing where the alibi witnesses testify?
SCOW takes up appellate review of juvenile waiver decisions
State v. X.S., 2021AP419, review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion, granted 10/18/21, case activity
Issues:
1. Whether the court of appeals erroneously exercised its discretion in denying “Xander’s” motion for reconsideration less than 24 hours after it was filed without any explanation?
2. Whether a juvenile who stipulates to the prosecutive merit of a delinquency petition is estopped from presenting any evidence to contradict factual averments in the petition even when those facts do not negate probable cause for the charged offense?
3. Whether the court of appeals erroneously applied the discretionary standard of review?
SCOW to review whether “Marsy’s Law” allows alleged victims to intervene in Shiffra/Green litigation
State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2019AP664-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 2/26/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issues presented (from Johnson’s PFR)
Does an alleged victim in a criminal case have standing under the 2020 crime victims’ rights constitutional amendment to submit legal arguments in opposition to the defendant’s motion for in camera review pursuant to the Shiffra/Green line of cases?
Did the 2020 constitutional amendment apply retroactively to a case that was commenced before the amendment was ratified?