On Point

certification; for Spaeth: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Spaeth BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Review granted 2/8/11

ISSUE

In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 460 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the government may compel incriminating testimony so long as it comes with a grant of use and derivative use immunity—that is to say,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; State Resp.

Interpreter

¶6        We begin with Kedinger’s claim that he was improperly denied an interpreter.  In Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31, ¶¶19, 21, 316 Wis. 2d 548, 766 N.W.2d 219, we noted that once a party properly notifies the trial court of the need for an interpreter,

State v. Tyler T., 2010AP784, District 2, 12/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication), affirmed, 2012 WI 52; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The prosecution isn’t prevented from appearing at a waiver recommendation staffing by the local health and human services agency, notwithstanding absence of the juvenile or his attorney.

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply

Confrontation – Generally

The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,

State v. Tracy Smiter, 2011 WI App 15; for Smiter: Mayaan Silver; case activity; Smiter BiC; State Resp.; Reply

During a routine traffic stop, passenger Smiter threw out of the window a substance the officer concluded was a marijuana blunt. Smiter was arrested for possession of marijuana (he concedes on appeal probable cause for the arrest) and the car then searched,

State v. Kenneth B. Bonner, 2010AP1414-CR, District 1, 12/28/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bonner: Dennis P. Coffey; case activity; Bonner BiC; State Resp.

Counsel – Waiver

The trial court’s waiver colloquy omitted two required components: assurance that the defendant made a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel, and was aware of the difficulties and dangers of self-representation,

State v. Cham Okery Omot, 2010AP899, District III

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Omot: Tyler William Wickman; case activity; Omot BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Evidence held insufficient to sustain convictions for maintaining drug trafficking place, § 961.42(1), and possession with intent to distribute THC , § 961.41(1m)(h)1., both as party to a crime,

State v. John M. Eaton, 2010AP1170-CR, District 4, 12/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Eaton: Chad A. Lanning; case activity; Eaton BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Traffic stop upheld where: “vehicle weave(d) in a pronounced manner within tis own lane of traffic”; vehicle came to complete stop at yellow blinking light (something officer testified was “possible indicia of impaired driving”;

State v. Bradley A. Brandsma, 2010AP1429-CR , District 4, 12/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brandsma: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity; Brandsma BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Trial courts have “very broad discretion” under § 972.12 to allow a deliberating jury to separate overnight before returning to resume deliberations; court of appeals rejects argument under state and federal constitutions “a circuit court should presume that any separation of a jury renders that jury impartial in light of rapidly changing modes and content of publicly available information,”

State v. Kathleen A. Ultsch, 2011 WI App 17(recommended for publication); for Ultsch: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Ultsch BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Warrantless entry into a home, supposedly to check on the well-being of a suspected drunk driver just involved in an accident, wasn’t justified under the community caretaker doctrine; State v.