On Point

Dear readers: On Point will be in “maintenance mode” for the new few weeks so that we can do some updating and redesigning. We’ll let you know when it is back up. Don’t worry. You won’t miss anything. Posts on cases issued during the hiatus will be waiting for you when On Point returns.  See you soon!

Richard Brown, one of the original judges elected to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in 1978, retires this week. Thirty-seven years of judging translates into some pretty impressive statistics. According to a Westlaw Reference Attorney, Judge Brown appears in their database as the member of a panel on 6,511 opinions (and that doesn’t count one-judge opinions). The court of appeals’ database (which only goes back to 1992) shows him associated with a staggering 9,393 written decisions. And staff attorney tallies show that he authored 965 three-judge opinions and 617 one-judge opinions since 1982. No one has dared to count the number of appellate briefs he has read. Because he is the longest-serving judge on the court of appeals (and started at age 32), it seems doubtful that colleagues will break his records any time soon.

Last December then Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote a concurrence to State v. Gonzalez, which publicized SCOW’s new procedures and deadlines for drafting, circulating, and issuing opinions. Abrahamson criticized the procedures partly because SCOW adopted them in private and partly because they eliminated the conferences where justices discussed their draft opinions and their thoughts about writing a concurrence or dissent. On Point reported the development here.  With last week’s John Doe decisions,

Kenosha County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP151, District 2, 7/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Trial counsel for A.C. in his TPR proceeding wasn’t ineffective for failing to tell A.C. that his incarceration was not enough by itself to terminate his parental rights or for failing to challenge the TPR proceeding on the basis that the grounds were unconstitutional as applied to A.C. because, based on his incarceration, the conditions for return were impossible to meet.

State v. Jon F. Winant, 2014AP1944, District 1, 7/21/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Paperwork created by DOC during the revocation of Winant’s parole and probation for having unsupervised contact with A.G., a minor, was properly admitted at Winant’s ch. 980 trial under § 908.03(8), the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule.

Oconto County v. Joseph R. Arndt, 2014AP2955, District 3, 7/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Arndt was not arrested within the curtilage of his home under the test established by United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

Walworth County DHS v. M.M.L., 2014AP2845, 7/15/15, District 2 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals affirms the involuntary commitment for M.M.L. under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., which requires evidence of impaired judgment based on recent acts or omissions showing a substantial probability that she would physically impair or injure herself or others. It rejects her challenges to the sufficiency of evidence and the testifying examiner’s references to  hearsay he relied on when forming his opinion.

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioners v. The Honorable Gregory Peterson et al.; State of Wisconsin ex rel. Francis D. Schmitz v. the Honorable Gregory Peterson, & State of Wisconsin ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners v. The Honorable Gregory Peterson, et al., 2015 WI 85, issued 7/16/15; case activity: Two Unnamed Petitioners; Schmitz v. Peterson; Three Unnamed Petitioners

Unless you’ve just returned from a trip to a remote corner of the globe that’s beyond the reach of news media, you know by now that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided the so-called “John Doe” cases. The court’s decision ordered a halt into the investigation of coordinated fundraising and spending between candidate committees and certain independent groups during the 2011-12 recall campaigns. Gargantuan by any standard, the decision goes on for almost 400 pages, with a majority opinion, two concurrences (Prosser and Ziegler), and two dissents/concurrences (Abrahamson and Crooks). It contains almost nothing of relevance to ordinary criminal law practice. However, in the interest of helping orient readers who may want to look more closely at the decision, below the break is a summary of the major issues and how the various opinions address them.

State v. Jesse L. Herrmann, 2015 WI 84, 7/15/15, afffirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

All seven justices agree Herrmann’s due process right to an impartial judge wasn’t violated in this case, as the sentencing judge’s remarks didn’t establish the judge was was objectively biased against Herrmann. Two separate concurrences consisting of four justices, however, express displeasure with (or attempt to limit, at least with respect to recusal) the objective bias test as established in previous Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Court cases.

State v. Richard E. Houghton, 2015 WI 79, 7/14/14, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2013AP1581-CR; majority by Prosser, dissent by Abrahamson (joined by Bradley); case activity (including briefs)

You’ve seen this before. An officer makes a traffic stop based on a “misunderstanding” of the law, then conducts a search and finds incriminating evidence.  Last July, in State v. Antonio Brown, SCOW held that a seizure based on such a mistake violates the 4th Amendment. Six months later, SCOTUS reached the opposite result in Heien v. North Carolina. In this case, SCOW overturns Brown to hold that: (1) “pretextual stops . . . are not per se unreasonable under the 4th Amendment”; (2) probable cause is never required for a traffic stop; (3) the officer here “misunderstood” multiple provisions of Ch. 346, but his mistakes were “objectively reasonable”; and (4) Article I §11 of Wisconsin’s Constitution extends no further than the 4th Amendment. Slip op. ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 50.