On Point

According to the dissent in State v. Matalonis, Wisconsin’s expansion of the community caretaker doctrine has pretty much swallowed the Fourth Amendment.  See our prior post here.  If you’re interested in this issue, take a look at the cert petition that Matalonis filed on June 30th.  We’ll keep you posted on how it fares.

State v. J.T.M., 2015AP1585, 7/19/16, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

A detective interrogated 16-year-old J.T.M. while he was in a juvenile residential facility without first giving Miranda warnings. Because J.T.M. was in custody and wasn’t given the warnings, his statement regarding a sexual assault allegation must be suppressed.

Did you miss the virtual awards banquet for the SCOWstats fantasy league? Don’t worry! SCOWstats honors its league stars in this morning’s post. Click here.

State v. V.A., 2015AP1614, 7/19/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

V.A. presented many issues on appeal, and the court rejected all of them. The most interesting ones concern collateral attacks on CHIPS orders, competency, and whether Wisconsin’s “failure to assume parental responsibility” statute is unconstitutional as applied to V.A.

OLR v. John Kenyatta Riley, 2016 WI 70, 7/15/16; case activity (including briefs)

Leaving us with another splintered decision as the current term comes to its end, a majority of the supreme court votes to publicly reprimand an attorney for “offering” false testimony from his client and then failing to take reasonable measures to correct the testimony. The precedential value of the opinion is uncertain, and perhaps nil, as there’s no majority rationale for the decision and it involves a previous version of the relevant ethical rule; nonetheless, every lawyer who calls witnesses should be aware of it and contemplate what it might portend.

The last decision is out, and the numbers are in. SCOW has set some new records. Click SCOWstats to learn about the court’s record-breaking 2015-2016 term.

A prosecutor’s exercise of discretion can trigger or avoid collateral consequences for your client. This new law review article analyzes how and why prosecutors make these decisions.

So far, only one Wisconsin case has interpreted and applied our new Castle Doctrine law–State v. Chew, 2014 WI App 116. Attorneys researching the issue may find a new law review article about this history of this type of legislation helpful.

State v. Giancarlo Giacomantonio, 2016 WI App 62; case activity (including briefs)

This is Wisconsin’s first published decision about how parties are to authenticate photographs of text messages so that they are admissible at trial.  The answer is the same way they authenticate other kinds of evidence–via §909.01 and §909.015. Nothing more is required.

State v. C.A.P., 2016AP824, District 1, 7/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

While § 48.427(1) gives a parent the right to present evidence and be heard at a dispositional hearing, in this case the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excluding two of C.A.P.’s witnesses and denying her request to recall a witness who testified earlier.