On Point

OLR v. Peter J. Kovac, 2016 WI 62, 7/8/16; case activity The supreme court suspended an attorney’s license for 90 days for professional misconduct in two criminal matters, including violating SCR 20:1.16(d) by failing to promptly provide the clients’ files to postconviction counsel. (¶¶5-6, 8, 9-10, 12). Because the attorney did not file an answer or defend against the OLR […]

Start your week with a couple of stories to will remind you that you can never be too skeptical.

State v. Navdeep S. Brar, 2015AP1261-CR, District 4, 7/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication),petition for review granted 12/19/2016, affirmed, 2017 WI 73 ; case activity (including briefs)

The record supports the circuit court’s conclusion that Brar consented to a blood test after his arrest for OWI and that his consent was voluntary.

State v. Cynthia J. Popp, 2016AP431-CR, District 4, 7/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

There was reasonable suspicion to continue detaining Popp for field sobriety testing even though the officer didn’t smell alcohol on her and told dispatch and a back-up officer he wasn’t sure what caused the poor driving he’d observed.

Unity Bayer v. Brian D. Dobbins, M.D., 2016 WI App 65; case activity (including briefs)

We note this decision in a civil case because it involves the application of the Daubert test, a still relatively undeveloped area of law, and may assist practitioners in making arguments for (or against) the admission of expert evidence.

State v. Leopoldo R. Salas Gayton, 2016 WI 58, 7/6/16, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2014 WI App 120, 358 Wis. 2d 709, 856 N.W.2d 345; case activity (including briefs)

SCOW took this case to address “whether a sentencing court may rely on a defendant’s illegal immigrant status as a factor in fashioning a sentence.” See here. In a 6-0 decision, the answer, at least on the facts of this case, is that a Wisconsin court may sentence a defendant more harshly because he is an “illegal alien.” The concurrence by Justice A.W. Bradley provides guidance to lower courts and defense attorneys about how to handle immigration status at sentencing.

State v. Lewis O. Floyd, Jr., 2016 WI App 64, petition for review granted 1/9/2017, affirmed, 2017 WI 78; case activity (including briefs)

Police found drugs on Floyd after they searched him during a traffic stop. Floyd claims the traffic stop was extended beyond what was necessary to issue the citations he was given and that he didn’t consent to the search. The court of appeals turns back both challenges.

State v. Charles David Sislo, 2015AP73-CR, 7/6/16, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wow! This “defense win” is gift wrapped for appellate lawyers. Sislo appealed the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of his arrest, arguing that the police had no probable cause to arrest him even considering the collective knowledge doctrine. The State’s response brief apparently “mischaracterized” Sislo’s argument, and this did not sit well with the court of appeals:

State v. Johnnie Mertice Wesley, 2015AP590-CR, District 1, 7/6/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wesley asserted his right to remain silent during an initial interrogation, and the detectives stopped questioning him. Detectives approached him two more times to resume questioning, and during the third interrogation Wesley made incriminating statements. The court of appeals holds that the detectives didn’t violate Wesley’s invocation of the right to remain silent by resuming interrogation. The court also rejects Wesley’s claim that he invoked the right to remain silent again during the third interrogation.

State v. J.M., 2016AP817 & 2016AP817, District 1, 7/6/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence introduced at the fact finding hearing was sufficient to establish both continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility grounds, and the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of T.M.’s children.