On Point

State v. Dennis L. Schwind, 2017AP141-CR, petition for review of a summary disposition granted 9/4/18; case activity

Issues (from Schwind’s petition for review):

1. Did the circuit court have inherent authority to reduce the length of Schwind’s probation?

2. If circuit courts have inherent authority to reduce the length of probation, what standard applies to the exercise of their authority?

State v. Joseph B. Reinwand, 2017AP850-CR; certification granted 9/4/2018; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the court of appeals’ certification):

1.  Whether the doctrine that provides for the forfeiture of the right to confrontation by wrongdoing applies at a homicide trial where the declarant is the homicide victim, but where the defendant killed the declarant to prevent him or her from testifying at a separate proceeding.

2.  Whether preventing the declarant from testifying must be the defendant’s primary purpose for the wrongful act that prevented the declarant from testifying in that separate proceeding.

State v. Michael A. Keister, 2017AP1618-CR, state’s petition for review granted 9/4/2018; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (based on the state’s petition for review )

1. Does a person have a fundamental liberty interest in participation in a treatment court funded by the state and county when he or she is charged with an offense involving violent conduct as defined in § 165.95(1)(a) (2015-16)?
2. Does § 165.95 (2015-16), the statute creating DOJ’s grant funding for treatment courts, violate procedural due process because it does not procedures for treatment courts to follow in expelling a participant?

State v. Norris W. Culver, 2018 WI App 55; case activity (including briefs)

Wisconsin Stat. § 942.09(3m)(a)2. prohibits a person from posting or publishing “private representations” without the consent of the person depicted in the representation. The court of appeals rejects Culver’s claim that the statute is void because it’s overbroad and vague. The court also rejects his claim that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because of the non-violent nature of his prior felony conviction.

State v. Ronald Lee Baric, 2018 WI App 63; case activity (including briefs)

Police failed to read Baric his Miranda rights, but the court of appeals still found that he consented to a search of his computer. It also resolved a 4th Amendment issue of first impression for Wisconsin: a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in files he offers for download on a P2P file sharing network.

On Point needs some maintenance and updating, so we’re on a short hiatus [NOUN: a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process. ORIGIN: Mid 16th century (originally denoting a physical gap or opening): from Latin, literally ‘gaping,’ from hiare ‘gape’]. See you after Labor Day.

Village of Pleasant Prairie v. Brian Lucas, 2017AP2131, District 2, 8/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This pro se defendant’s challenges to his OWI conviction go nowhere.

Monroe County DHS v. J.N.D., 2018AP177, District 4, 8/23/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects J.N.D.’s argument that her TPR trial should be redone because the real controversy wasn’t fully tried.

Sheboygan County DHHS v. K.N.L., 2017AP2413, District 2, 8/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.N.L. asserts a prospective juror (“Juror J.”) was biased and so the circuit court erred in declining to strike her for cause. Applying Wisconsin’s case law governing jury bias (summarized at ¶¶13-16), the court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s conclusion the juror wasn’t biased and, even if she was, the failure to strike her was harmless as she didn’t end up on the jury because K.N.L. peremptorily struck her.

State v. T.W., 2018AP967 & 2018AP968, District 1, 8/21/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the trial on the petition to terminate T.W.’s parental rights, the GAL argued in closing that the jury should consider the interests of the children. T.W.’s lawyer didn’t object, but the court of appeals holds that failure wasn’t prejudicial and so rejects T.W.’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective.