On Point: A. Review Grants

On review of certification request; case activity

Invocation of the right to counsel

Issues (Composed by On Point)

1. Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide more protection than Maryland v. Shatzer, ___U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (holding that, even if a defendant has invoked his or her right to counsel, law enforcement may give the Miranda warnings again so long as the defendant has been released from custody for at least fourteen days)?

Jamerson v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 2013 WI 7

Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2012 WI App 32, 340 Wis. 2d 215, 813 N.W.2d 221

This case is not directly applicable to SPD practice, but it is a useful reminder of the multitudinous collateral consequences that may attend a criminal conviction. Here’s the gist:

¶2   The new [2009] caregiver law [relating to child care licenses] imposes a lifetime ban on licensure,

on review of certification; case activity

Issue (from Certification) 

Whether our holding in Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232, ¶¶26, 28, 267 Wis. 2d 739, 672 N.W.2d 88, that “Wisconsin Stat. § 51.35(1)(e) mandates that a patient transferred to a more restrictive environment receive a hearing within ten days of said transfer,” is contrary to the plain language of the statute.  

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the county adequately proved that Melanie L. is incompetent to exercise informed consent, in that: the county’s expert testified that she was incapable of applying an understanding “to her advantage” instead of “to … her mental illness … in order to make an informed choice” (§ 51.61(1)(g)4.b.); and she recognizes she is mentally ill and needs medication,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the municipal court lacks competence to extend the 10-day time deadline for requesting a refusal hearing.

Brefka filed a request for refusal hearing outside the 10-day time limit in § 343.305(9)(a)4. Does a court possess competence to extend that deadline? No dice, according to the court of appeals: “Section 343.305(9)(a)4. specifically mandates that if the request for a hearing is not received within the ten-day period, 

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point) 

1. Whether the defendant made the requisite showing for in camera review of the complainant’s privileged therapy records.

2. Whether, given necessity for in camera review, the complainant’s refusal to authority release of the records mandates suppression of her testimony.

The implications for the administration of State v.

on review of published decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether a circuit court has inherent authority to order destruction of a presentence investigation report (albeit under “unique facts”), after sentencing and entry of judgment.

And as to those unique facts? The PSI at issue contained information about uncharged offenses that the trial court determined “would be prejudicial to Melton as he went through the …

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point) 

1. Whether the non-waivable nature of the defendant’s right to personal presence at voir dire, citing, § 971.04(1)(c); State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 839, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999), extends to examination of a juror for possible dismissal following selection and swearing-in.

2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed two jurors,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether Sahs’ statements to his probation agent, along with evidence derived from those statements, were suppressible under the “Evans-Thompson” rule, which holds that a probationer’s statements which are compelled by the terms of probation – provide information to an agent when requested or face revocation – are covered by use- and derivative-immunity.

Sahs,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether, after asserting his right to counsel, Lonkonski initiated further communication with the police so as to allow admissibility of his ensuing statement, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 483-85 (1981).

There may be a threshold dispute as to whether Lonkoski was in custody at the time he asserted his right to counsel,