Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
COA: Circuit court properly exercised its discretion in its evidentiary rulings at trial on grounds to terminate parental rights.
State v. D.J., 2025AP1334 and 1335, 9/16/25, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Over the respondent’s evidentiary objections, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating D.J.’s parental rights to two of her children.
COA, bound by precedent, rejects constitutional challenge involving mandatory minimum CSA charges
State v. Keith Kenyon, 2022AP2228-CR, 9/16/25, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
Although COA is surprisingly candid in acknowledging some of the injustices present in this appeal, the Court ultimately concludes that Kenyon’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by existing precedent.
Eastern District holds that investigators violated 4th Amendment when they viewed suspected child pornography identified via “hash matching;” holds that good faith does not apply
United States of America v. Peter Braun, 24-CR-164 (E.D. Wis. 9/3/25).
In an interesting Fourth Amendment case, the Court holds that law enforcement violated Braun’s rights when it viewed suspected child pornography without a search warrant when that child pornography had not been previously viewed by an employee of an ESP.
COA holds that stipulation forecloses challenge to lack of expert testimony at protective placement hearing; evidence otherwise sufficient
V.K. v. D.J.F., 2024AP2028, 9/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA ducks a recurrent issue as to whether expert testimony is required to prove the grounds for a protective placement and otherwise affirms the circuit court’s order granting this privately-filed petition for protective placement.
COA orders new trial in CHIPS proceeding because circuit court excluded evidence that respondent executed power of attorney to guarantee child’s care while she was in custody
State v. A.C.S, 2024AP1634, 9/10/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s dispositional order entered after a jury found “Anna’s” child was in need of protection or services (CHIPS) and ordered a new trial because the court excluded evidence that Anna executed a power of attorney to guarantee the child’s care while she was in custody.
Seventh Circuit cases for August
Buckle up! August was a busy month for the 7th, with many interesting cases decided including a defense lawyer telling the jury he believed the child victim during closing arguments, a couple of habeas cases, a discussion on the difference between direct and other acts evidence, false arrest for suspected animal abuse, an interesting decision on counsel’s obligation to litigate unsettled law, and so much more!
SCOTUS stays district court’s order preventing ICE agents from making investigatory stops without individualized reasonable suspicion
Noem v. Perdomo, USSC No. 25A169, 9/8/2025, Scotusblog page
SCOTUS stayed a district court’s order enjoining immigration agents from conducting stops in the Los Angeles area unless the agent has reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is within the United States in violation of immigration law.
COA affirms order denying child’s request for change of placement in CHIPS case
Sheboygan County DH & HS v. N.H. & E.H., 2025AP903-FT, 9/10/25, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Luke” appeals from an order denying his request to change his placement back to his father’s home in a CHIPS case. COA affirms.
COA affirms TPR orders, concludes that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient and circuit court properly excluded evidence related to a younger child
State v. M.W., 2025AP2364 &2365 , 9/3/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
M.W. appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to two of her children, “Liam” and “Karen,” and the order denying her motion for postdisposition relief. She argues that her trial counsel was ineffective when by failing object to multiple instances of hearsay, and her due process
rights were violated when the court ruled that she could not introduce evidence at trial that another child remained in her care. COA affirms.
COA holds circuit courts may preclude parents from participating virtually at TPR disposition
State v. G.W., 2025AP1214, 9/3/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
G.W. appeals from the circuit court’s order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, arguing that the circuit court denied him due process and erroneously exercised its discretion when it did not allow him to appear virtually at the dispositional hearing. COA affirms.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.