On Point

State v. Kruckenberg Anderson, 2023AP396-CR, 7/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

The tragic death of a newborn baby in the bucolic countryside of southwest Wisconsin prompted aggressive interrogation techniques by law enforcement that the Court of Appeals considered coercive in light of the suspect’s age of 16.  But the court found that a reasonable 16-year old would have felt free to leave when the police told him repeatedly he was not under arrest and did not have to answer questions; law enforcement therefore did not have to advise the suspect of his Miranda rights.  The COA affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order suppressing the defendant’s statements.

Dane County v. J.B., 2024AP985, 7/25/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Because J.B.’s request that COA reweigh the dispositional factors in her favor is precluded by governing case law, COA affirms.

Brown County v. J.D.T., 2023AP2339, 7/23/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.D.T. challenges the his commitment under ch. 51 (second and third standards). The COA concludes that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the third standard, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., and therefore does not address the second standard.

In the Wisconsin Lawyer, Retired Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Christopher R. Foley has an insightful piece titled “Left in the Dark: State v. A.G. & Burden of Proof in Involuntary TPR Dispositional Hearings.” The article contains an interesting analysis of the current state of the law, along with some arguments Judge Foley believes have […]

Karl W. Nichols v. Lance Wiersma, No. 22-3059, 7/16/24

In a complicated case that contains many harsh lessons about the standards applicable to habeas petitions, the Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief as the exculpatory value of unpreserved evidence was not “apparent.”

In addition to the SCOTUS cases to which we devoted individual posts (Smith v. Arizona, Erlinger v. U.S., U.S. v. Rahimi, Garland v. Cargill), below is a summary of criminal or criminal-adjacent cases decided by SCOTUS in the 2023-24 term that we consider of interest to criminal practice in Wisconsin state courts.

State v. Jayden Adams, 2023AP218-CR, 7/23/24, District 1 (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25, voluntarily dismissed 3/5/25, case activity

Adams appealed a nonfinal order denying his motion for discovery prior to his Wis. Stat. § 970.032(1) preliminary examination and his motion for reverse waiver to juvenile court. Despite holding that juvenile defendants have a limited right to discovery before a prelim under State v. Klesser, 2010 WI 88, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144, the COA concludes that Adams was not entitled to the discovery he requested in this case. The COA also concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the reverse waiver.

Portage County v. W.P.R., 2024AP454, 7/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court’s order denying defendant’s request for new counsel in TPR case.

June brought several interesting criminal-law related cases, including two Fourth Amendment challenges involving THC in our changed legal landscape, a discussion of whether a crime forbidding the impersonation of police is unconstitutional, and a challenge to a conviction for lying on firearm purchase paperwork under the Second Amendment.

Rodney Lass v. Jason Wells, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 23-2880, 6/26/24

Lass was charged with multiple felony counts after his first trial on misdemeanor domestic abuse charges ended in a mistrial. During state postconviction and appeal proceedings, he raised claims of vindictive prosecution, ineffective assistance, and violation of his 6th amendment rights. The 7th Circuit denied relief as to Lass’s IAC and 6th amendment claims as procedurally defaulted, and rejects the vindictive prosecution claim because the Wisconsin courts already considered and reasonably rejected Lass’s same “fact-based arguments.”