On Point

State v. A.M.B., 2015AP1618, District 1, 4/12/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Andy was incarcerated when his daughter Catie was born and he remained in custody throughout the subsequent CHIPS and TPR proceedings. He ultimately admitted to the continuing CHIPS ground for termination of his parental rights, but now claims his admission was invalid because he was not aware that, under Kenosha County Department of Human Services v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, incarceration alone cannot be grounds to terminate parental rights. The court of appeals finds no flaws in his admission.

State v. J.J., 2016AP194 & 2016AP195, 4/12/2016, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.J., the father, appeals the termination of his rights to his two children, J.J. and A.J., challenging not the finding of unfitness but only the court’s determination that termination was in the best interest of each child.

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

Issue (from petition for review):

Is a defendant deprived of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and his rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution by the admission at trial in the state’s case-in chief of his unwarned custodial statements made in response to law enforcement’s asking for a statement?

State v. Jimmie Lee Smith, 2016 WI 23, 4/7/16, reversing a published court of appeals decision, majority opinion by Roggensack, concurrence by Ziegler, dissent by Abrahamson (joined by A.W. Bradley); case activity (including briefs)

You can’t accuse the majority of mere error correction in this decision. Although the State never asked SCOW to rewrite the “clearly erroneous” standard of review and nobody briefed or orally argued the issue (see Ziegler’s concurrence and Abrahamson’s dissent), the majority seized the opportunity to make a tough standard even tougher. Unless SCOTUS steps in, it’s going to be virtually impossible to  challenge circuit court competency findings as well as other circuit court decisions governed by the “clearly erroneous” standard of review.

On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from certification)

This appeal presents a single recurring issue: whether provisions in Wisconsin’s implied consent law authorizing a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious suspect violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. More specifically, the issue is whether the “implied consent,” deemed to have occurred before a defendant is a suspect, is voluntary consent for purposes of the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from certification):

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?

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

Issues:

In State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341, this Court held that circuit courts may not consider an expunged record of conviction, but may consider the facts underlying an expunged record of conviction at sentencing. Did the circuit court violate Leitner when it considered at sentencing that Mr. Allen had an expunged conviction and served a term of probation?

Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the references to Mr. Allen’s expunged conviction in the pre-sentence investigation and at sentencing?

State v. Alina N. Caminiti, 2015AP122-CR, and State v. Matthew B. Caminiti, 2015AP123-CR, 4/6/2016, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The Caminitis were members of a church in Black Earth whose leader (Matthew’s father) advocated “rod discipline”–the beating of infants and young children on the bare buttocks with wooden spoons or dowels, often resulting in bruising. The father’s convictions for conspiracy to commit child abuse were affirmed by the court of appeals in 2014; the Caminitis now appeal their convictions at trial for physical abuse of their two children on substantive due process and religious freedom grounds.

State v. Raymond L. Nieves, 2014AP1623-CR, 4/5/16, District 1 (recommended for publication, but not published); petition for review granted 9/13/16; case activity (including briefs).

This case explores the line between Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968)(which holds that at a joint trial the confession of one defendant is inadmissible against the co-defendant unless the confessing defendant testifies and is subject to cross examination) and Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987)(which holds that a non-testifying defendant’s written confession can be admitted if it is redacted to eliminate all references to his co-defendant). Nieves and his codefendant, Maldonado, were accused of 1st degree intentional homicide. The trial court denied severance and allowed a witness testify about Maldonado’s confession while repeatedly use the term “they” (implicating Maldonado and Nieves). The court of appeals ordered a new trial because admission of the confession evidence violated the Confrontation Clause.

State v. Esequiel Morales-Pedrosa, 2016 WI App 38; case activity (including briefs)

The case law prohibiting vouching by one witness for the credibility of another witness didn’t clearly cover a forensic interviewer’s testimony that 90% of child sexual assault reports are true. Thus, trial counsel wasn’t deficient for failing to object to the testimony.