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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
In a refreshingly straightforward statutory construction case, SCOW upholds defense TPR win
State v. R.A.M., 2024 WI 26, 6/25/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In a 5-2 defense win, SCOW concludes that a statute requiring the circuit court to wait two days before proceeding to disposition after finding a parent in default means what it says.
SCOW finds injunction against abortion clinic protestor violated First Amendment.
Kindschy v. Aish, 2024 WI 27, 6/27/24, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
SCOW finds injunction against abortion clinic protestor violated First Amendment.
SCOTUS addresses half of the Confrontation Clause analysis on substitute expert testimony; holds such testimony is generally hearsay
Smith v. Arizona, USSC No. 22-899, 6/21/2024, vacating and remanding Arizona v. Smith, No. 1CA-CR 21-0451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022) (unreported); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS unanimously holds that expert witness testimony restating an absent lab analyst’s factual assertions to support his or her own opinion is hearsay. However, the Court declined to address the second part of the Confrontation Clause test, whether the underlying evidence was testimonial, as the issue was undeveloped in this case.
In a sequel to its previous decision in A.G., SCOW holds that parent is not entitled to plea withdrawal or new dispo hearing; leaves other issues open
State v. B.W., 2024 WI 28, 6/27/24, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In a closely-watched TPR appeal, SCOW issues a decision that leaves many open questions regarding the vexing “burden of proof” issue that has ensnarled lower courts.
COA: Circuit court need not weigh all criteria equally when determining whether to waive juvenile into adult court.
State v. M.P., 2024AP32, 6/26/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order waiving M.P. into adult court based on M.P.’s age and seriousness of the offense.
SCOTUS requires jury to find whether prior offenses occurred on different occasions to enhance sentence under Armed Career Criminal Act
Erlinger v. United States, USSC No. 23-370, June 21, 2024, vacating United States v. Erlinger, 77 F.4th 617 (7th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
Whether offenses committed on three “occasions different from one another” for purposes of federal Armed Career Criminal Act must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
SCOW approves rule petition creating expedited appeal procedure for orders under 971.14
In the Matter of Proposed Rules Relating to Appellate Court Proceedings From Orders Entered Pursuant to Wis. Stat § 971.14 Regarding Pretrial Competency Rulings in Criminal Cases, Order Filed 5/2/2024; effective July 1, 2024.
In response to an increasing amount of appeals pertaining to competency, particularly of medication orders, SCOW approves a new appellate mechanism for appeals of orders (including medication orders) entered under § 971.14.
SCOW accepts review of yet another Chapter 51 appeal
Douglas County v. K.A.D., 2023AP1072, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 6/17/24; case activity (including briefs)
In an interesting grant, SCOW agrees to review this freestanding appeal of an expired medication order.
COA holds that appeal of Chapter 55 protective placement review is moot
Washington County v. T.R.Z., 2024AP21, District II, 6/19/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although “Tim’s” appeal presents several issues for review, COA dismisses the appeal as moot given the existence of an intervening Watts review.
SCOTUS tempers pro-gun 2nd Amendment precedent; holds States may disarm a citizen who poses “a clear threat of physical violence to another”
United States of America v. Rahimi, USSC No. 22-915, 6/21/2024, reversing United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
In a much-anticipated Second Amendment decision, SCOTUS tries to clarify its turbulent precedent regarding firearm restrictions and offers a limited holding upholding a federal statute disarming persons subject to domestic abuse restraining orders so long as specific statutory elements are met.
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.