On Point

Micah D. Stern v. Michael Meisner, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-2558, 2/9/16

Stern’s conviction for using a computer to facilitate a sex crime against a child under § 948.075 is constitutional because the Wisconsin appellate court’s conclusion that the statute allows conviction based on the defendant’s “reason to believe” the victim is a minor was neither unreasonable nor unforeseeable.

State v. Robert A. Schoengarth, 2015AP1834-CR, 2/11/16, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered that police could not testify about Schoengarth’s performance on field sobriety tests.

Rock County HSD v. D.B., 2015AP2420, District 4, 2/11/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects D.B.’s argument that the circuit court terminated her parental rights to T.J. without properly considering the facts that there was no adoptive resource available for T.J. at the time of termination, that a strong bond existed between T.J. and D.B. and T.J.’s older brother, and that T.J. had consistently expressed wishes to be returned to D.B.’s care.

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (copied from the State’s petition for review):

No witness, expert or otherwise, may give an opinion at a trial that another mentally and physically competent witness is telling the truth. Here, the social worker who interviewed a child regarding her claim that she had been sexually assaulted  testified that there was no indication that the child had been coached and no indication that the child was not being honest during the interview. Did the social worker’s testimony constitute a prohibited opinion that, during this interview, the child was telling the truth?

Dennis A. Teague v. J. B. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20, petition for review granted 6/15/16, reversed, 2017 WI 56 ; case activity (including briefs)

Dennis A. Teague has no criminal record. But somebody who once used his name, and a date of birth similar to his, does. The ironic result is that Teague, a likely victim of identity theft, is now suggested to be a criminal by the Department of Justice’s criminal history database. Teague, understandably, objects, but the court of appeals concludes it has no power to fix the problem.

State v. Rozerick E. Mattox, 2015AP158; District 2, 2/10/2016, certification granted 4/7/16, conviction affirmed, 2017 WI 9, ; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Does it violate a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the State to introduce at trial a toxicology report identifying certain drugs in a deceased victim’s system and/or testimony of a medical examiner basing his/her cause-of-death opinion in part on the information set forth in such a report, if the author of the report does not testify and is not otherwise made available for examination by the defendant?

State v. Charles V. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, 2/10/16, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

This is a painful loss for the defense. Matalonis won suppression at the court of appeals. The State filed a petition for review, which, of course, was granted. SCOW held oral argument and took a tentative vote before Justice Crooks died. After his death, the vote changed to 3-3. So you’d expect this case to end in a tie, which would affirm the court of appeals’ decision. But that did not happen.  Instead, though she has not participated in any other case argued and decided before she joined SCOW,  Justice R. Bradley emerged to cast the decisive vote against the defendant here. Even worse, Justice Prosser says the majority opinion extends the community caretaker exception just enough to swallow the 4th Amendment. Ouch.

You’ve heard it many times. When a criminal defendant loses at the court of appeals, it’s really hard to persuade SCOW to take the case. But when the State loses and files petition for review, a grant order is pretty much a done deal. That seems true even when the State’s fails to identify an opportunity for “law development,” which, according to Wis. Stat. §809.62, is SCOW’s mission.

SCOTUS will hear argument in Utah v. Strieff on February 22nd. Orin Kerr just published, on SCOTUSblog, this analysis of the future of the exclusionary rule, which has come under attack in recent decisions like Davis v. U.S. and Herring v. U.S. If you’ve got a Fourth Amendment issue, his post is worth a read.

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs).

Issue (composed by On Point):

Is hot pursuit of a suspect based upon probable cause for a jailable offense a stand-alone justification for a warrantless home entry and arrest or must law enforcement reasonably believe that a delay in obtaining a warrant would endanger life, risk destruction of evidence, or greatly enhance the likelihood of the person’s escape?