On Point

On review of a per curiam opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

1. Which statute governs the service of a subpoena in a criminal case: §885.03 which provides that a subpoena may be left at a witness’s abode or §805.07 and §801.11 which require reasonable diligence to personally serve a witness before leaving the subpoena at her abode?

2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that he had properly served the witness with a subpoena per §885.03? If not, then whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to attempt to serve the witness personally before leaving the subpoena at her abode as required by §801.11.

Review of a per curiam opinion; case activity (including briefs); petition for review

Issues (from Stietz’s petition):

1. On the facts of this case, did the court of appeals deny Stietz’s federal and state constitutional rights to present a complete defense of self-defense, and contradict controlling precedent of this Court in State v. Mendoza, 80 Wis. 2d 122, 258 N.W.2d 260 (1977), by weighing Stietz’s credibility and requiring more than “some evidence,” even if inconsistent, to support a self-defense instruction?

2. On the facts of this case, did the court of appeals deny Stietz’s federal and state constitutional rights to present a defense by forbidding argument that Stietz was defending himself against two men he reasonably believed were armed trespassers?

3. On the facts of this case the court of appeals contradict this Court’s controlling decision in State v. Hobson, 218 Wis. 2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), by foreclosing self-defense against wardens who: (a) the accused did not know were law enforcement officers, on evidence the jury was entitled to credit; (b) were not even claiming to make an arrest, but only were trying to disarm a man without apparent right; and (c) were not acting peaceably in any event, but rather were trying violently to disarm a lawfully armed man?

On bypass;  case activity (including briefs)

Issue (derived from court of appeals’ briefs):

Whether the Crime Victims Rights Board’s power to remedy a violation of a victim’s right to the speedy disposition of a criminal case can be applied to judges without violating the separation of powers doctrine.

Outagamie County v. J.J., 2016AP43, 10/12/16, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

If this opinion doesn’t cross the line of Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, ¶¶91, 97, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607, it at least curls its toes around the decision. 

They may seem more measured and bias free, but according to this new article, they aren’t very good. Compas has significant flaws, and the accuracy of the Static 99-R “is not much better than a coin toss.” This article links to a number of studies that might support a challenge to the use of these […]

State v. Sabrina Marie Hebert, 2015AP2183-CR, District 3, 10/12/2016 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Hebert’s challenges to the circuit court’s factual findings and its conclusion that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car she was driving.

State v. Darren Wade Caster, 2015AP1965-CR, District 3, 10/12/2016 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The fact that an officer stopped Caster outside the limits of his jurisdiction does not mean the evidence garnered from the stop must be suppressed because the stop was reasonable.

State v. Samuel K. Dixon, 2015AP2307-CR. 10/6/16; District 1 (per curiam; uncitable); case activity (including briefs)

You may not cite this per curiam opinion as precedent in any Wisconsin court, but happily you can bask in Dixon’s victory. The court of appeals wisely held that his 5-minute, friendly conversation with a “thicker black female” at 6:00 a.m. on 29th and Lisbon in Milwaukee did not constitute reasonable suspicion of prostitution-related activity.

State v. Brandon E. Jordan, 2015AP2062-CR, 10/6/16, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Jordan violated the terms of his Deferred Prosecution Agreement and received a warning letter which resulted in a 6-month extension of the agreement with new conditions. He then violated the conditions of the extension, and was terminated from the Deferred Prosecution Program. He argued that his termination violated the terms of the DPA.

State v. David L. Tarlo, 2016 WI App 81; case activity (including briefs)

When’s the last time you saw a defense win on a restitution issue? This child porn case addresses the vexing problem of circuit courts awarding restitution though the victim failed to prove that her losses were “a result of a crime considered at sentencing” as required by Wis. Stat. §973.20(14)(a).