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
Seventh Circuit denies habeas petition because Supreme Court precedent was unclear whether de facto life sentence for juvenile considered capable of reform violated Eighth Amendment.
Curtis L. Walker v. Dan Cromwell, No. 23-2240, 6/16/25
Despite making a “strong case for relief” that his de-facto life sentence for a homicide committed when he was 17 violated the Eighth Amendment, the Seventh Circuit held that Curtis Walker’s habeas petition could not overcome the heavy burden imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to show that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court because the Court’s precedents were not “a model of clarity.”
COA addresses dual sentence credit when imposed and stayed sentence is lifted in case recommended for publication.
State v. Scott R. Dachelet, 2023AP970, 6/25/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
Wisconsin’s seemingly straightforward sentence credit statute – Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) – is required to accommodate an infinite variety of scenarios. Here, the COA addressed whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit on a withheld sentence where probation was revoked while also receiving credit for an imposed and stayed sentence that was revoked. Because lifting the stay on the imposed and stayed sentence severed the connection between the defendant’s custody and the case for which his sentence was withheld, the Court found that he was not entitled to dual sentence credit.
COA rejects sufficiency challenges in 51 appeal and affirms
Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.
COA: Prospective juror’s equivocal answers regarding bias against defendant charged with sexually assaulting child not sufficient to overcome presumption of impartiality.
State v. Richard Leo Mathewson, 2022AP2124-CR, 6/17/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
COA holds that prospective juror’s equivocal answers during voir dire regarding bias against defendant charged with sexual assault of a child is not sufficient to overcome presumption that juror is impartial.
SCOW holds statistical evidence alone does not violate Haseltine rule
State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2025 WI 21, 6/13/25, reversing COA’s authored, unpublished opinion; case activity
SCOW considers whether an expert witness violated Haseltine‘s anti-vouching rule when she testified that only around one percent of child sexual assault disclosures are false without offering an opinion on whether the victim in this case was telling the truth. A unanimous court overrules Mader and any other court of appeals case that holds statistical evidence alone violates the Haseltine rule.
COA affirms OWI conviction at trial, finding that nontestifying witness’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial and defendant not subjected to custodial interrogation.
State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.
COA holds that driver’s odor of alcohol and prior conviction for OWI provides reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop
State v. Peter Joseph Idell, 2024AP2230, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that an odor of intoxicants and the driver’s 2009 conviction for OWI established reasonable suspicion to extend stop for expired license plates to investigate OWI.
SCOTUS: Second habeas petition filed while first petition pending on appeal must clear procedural hurdle before claim may be considered on its merits.
Rivers v. Guerrero, USSC No. 23-1345, 6/12/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
A unanimous SCOTUS held that a habeas petitioner’s second filing asserting a new claim for relief, submitted after the district court entered judgment with respect to the first filing but while the first filing was pending on appeal, qualifies as a “second or successive” petition and must be approved by the court of appeals before considered by the district court.
Defense Win: Circuit court erroneously exercised discretion when it denied motion to suppress under independent source doctrine without evidentiary hearing
State v. Timothy J. Petrie, 2024AP2629-CR, 6/11/25, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Petrie argued the officer lacked probable cause to perform a preliminary breath test (PBT), therefore all evidenced gathered afterward must be suppressed. On appeal, he contends that the circuit court improperly applied the independent source doctrine because the state failed to present evidence at the suppression hearing and the court relied on the complaint. COA reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion.
COA affirms PAC conviction, concludes officer had reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop for FSTs
City of West Bend v. Logan Patrick Lang, 2024AP2559, District II, 6/4/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying Lang’s suppression motion. Lang did not challenge the initial stop, but argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for field sobriety tests.
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.