On Point

City of Antigo v. John Paul Fermanich, 2023AP1834, 6/16/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The City of Antigo appeals an order granting John Paul Fermanich’s motion to suppress blood evidence because Fermanich’s consent to the blood draw was coerced. COA affirms in this “close case” as it is the city’s burden to demonstrate that Fermanich freely and voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw.

County of Milwaukee v. Kent Austin Williams, 2025AP2110, 6/16/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

Kent Austin Williams, pro se, challenges the circuit court’s judgment finding him guilty of speeding on the basis that Milwaukee County did not present sufficient evidence to support the violation. COA disagrees and affirms.

State  v. I.T.S., , 2025AP2517, 6/17/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although I.T.S. argues that his writings composed during an in-school suspension were private and not true threats for the purposes of the First Amendment, COA affirms.

State v. Aman D. Singh, 2025AP424, 6/16/26, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA held that felony fleeing and resisting arrest are the “same act” for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations.

Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. C.J.T., 2026AP794, 6/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

CJT appeals the circuit court order terminating his parental rights to his son, JJT, arguing that the court failed to demonstrate that it considered all of the required factors at disposition. Despite the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA agrees, reversing the termination order and remanding for a proper exercise of discretion.

Clark v. Mississippi, USSC No. 25-6846, 6/8/2026, denying petition for certiorari; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

SCOTUS denied Tony Terrell Clark’s petition for a writ of certiorari from the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision affirming his conviction at a capital trial.  Clark argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel during jury selection because his trial lawyer did not adequately raise a Batson challenge when the State struck black jurors at a rate five times more than white jurors.  Justice Sotomayor joined the Court’s decision to deny certiorari because Clark did not argue his counsel’s performance was deficient, but explained in an accompanying statement why the Court needs to address the conflict among state and federal courts regarding the standard to evaluate prejudice for a Batson claim.

Yacoub v. St. Croix County, 2023AP758, 759, 760, 761 & 762, 5/27/26, District III (ineligible for publication) case activity.

COA affirms judgment requiring Attorney Sarah Yacoub to pay $4,663.03 in costs and attorney fees as a remedial sanction after the circuit court found her in contempt for intentionally disclosing confidential information from 5 CHIPS cases.

Ozaukee County v. J.J.W., 2025AP1702, 6/3/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order continuing “Jacob’s” protective placement and determined the County did not need to establish a substantial risk of future harm by presenting evidence of previous harm identical to the harm that is anticipated.

Whitton v. Dixon, USSC No. 25-580, 6/1/2026, reversing a per curiam decision of the 11th Circuit, Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

In an unusual defense win involving “peculiar” conduct by the Eleventh Circuit, SCOTUS wades through the thicket of habeas law and reverse and remands for further consideration of Whitton’s Giglio claim.

Pitchford v. Cain, USSC No. 24-7351, 5/28/2026, reversing 126 F. 4th 422 (5th Cir. 2025); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

Batson v. Kentucky held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits prosecutors from exercising peremptory challenges based on race.  A three-step process is used to implement Batson.  First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that a peremptory strike was based on race.  If the defendant meets this burden, the state must provide a race-neutral reason for the challenged strike.  The defendant may then rebut the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason by showing it was pretextual.

SCOTUS held, in a 5-4 decision, that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson when it affirmed the defendant’s conviction for murder after the trial court did not address whether the prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for striking four of five potential black jurors were pretextual.  The Court also found the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined the facts because it concluded the defendant waived his Batson challenge even though he was not provided an opportunity to rebut the state’s proffered race-neutral explanations and was later assured by the trial court that his Batson objection was preserved for the record.