On Point

Marquette County v. T.F.W., 2015AP2603-FT, 3/24/16, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At T.F.W.’s ch. 51 extension hearing, one of the examining physicians was asked “have the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to [T.F.W.’s] medication been explained to [him]?” Her answer: “Yes, they have.” (¶7). That was the extent of the testimony on the matter, but the court of appeals holds it was good enough to satisfy the requirement of § 51.61(1)(g)4.(intro.) and Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607.

Arthur Mitchell v. Donald Enloe, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2946, 3/24/16

The Seventh Circuit rejects Mitchell’s claims that the lawyer representing him at his state murder was ineffective because he should have asked for a provocation instruction as well as a self-defense instruction, because the two defenses were inconsistent and the jury clearly rejected the testimony on which provocation would have been based.

Eric D. Holmes v. Ron Neal, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Nos. 04-3549, 06-2905, and 14-3359, 3/22/16

Holmes claims various errors in his capital murder case merit habeas relief, but the 7th Circuit doesn’t agree.

State v. Jeffrey C. Denny, 2016 WI App 27, petition for review granted 6/15/16, overruled, 2017 WI 17; case activity (including briefs)

If you are thinking about filing a motion under § 974.07 or are in the middle of litigating such a motion, you’ll want to read this decision. The court of appeals holds Denny is entitled to DNA testing of certain evidence because he showed that the items he sought to test are “relevant to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in [his] conviction….” The court also holds he is entitled to testing at public expense because it is reasonably probable he would not have been convicted if exculpatory DNA testing results had been available at the time of his conviction.

State v. John Steven Duewell, 2015AP43-44-CR, 3/23/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In a decision that seems to conflict directly with State v. Torbeck, 2012 WI App 106, 344 Wis. 2d 299, 821 N.W.2d 414, see our post here, the court of appeals holds that carburetor cleaner is an intoxicant under Wisconsin’s OWI statute, Wis. Stat. §346.63(1)(a)(2011-2012).

Racine County Human Services Dep’t v. L.H., 2015AP1872, 3/23/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

During the fact-finding stage of L.H.’s TPR trial, counsel (1) failed to object to evidence that L.H’.s child, C.M., had bonded with his foster parents; (2) failed to object to an inaccurate 5/6ths verdict instruction; and (3) and agreed to only 3 peremptory strikes though L.H. was entitled to 4. The court of appeals nevertheless upheld the order terminating L.H.’s parental rights.

Outagamie County D.H. & H. S. v. Michael P., 2015AP845, 3/22/16, District 3 (i-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

A jury found grounds to terminate Michael P’s parental rights. He appealed and explained that during the County’s adverse examination of him, the trial judge repeatedly interrupted and instructed him to answer only the questions posed by the County. The judge, he claimed, displayed objective bias, thereby depriving him of an impartial tribunal. And his lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to the judge’s questions.

State v. James A. Webb, 2015AP1613-CR, 3/22/16, District 1 (-1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals here reverses a suppression order and holds that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Webb’s SUV because its high-mount stop light was not working while the driver was braking. During the stop, officers discovered that Webb was carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.

Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts, USSC No. 14-10078, 2016WL1078932 (per curiam), vacating Commonwealth v. Caetano, 470 Mass. 774, 26 N.E.2d 688 (2015); SCOTUSblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Jaime Caetano obtained a stun gun in order to protect herself from an abusive boyfriend. When she was prosecuted for violating a Massachusetts statute that prohibited the possession of stun guns, she argued that the law violated her 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled against her. SCOTUS, in one fell swoop, granted her cert petition and reversed. Here is the meat of its two-page per curiam opinion:

It’s not just your imagination. This term, SCOW could set a record for issuing the fewest opinions at the slowest pace since SCOWstats started keeping records. Click here to see whether there’s hope for a comeback. And remember that new operating procedure aimed at speeding up the release of opinions? Fuhgeddaboudit! That was sooo last term.  🙂