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
A Salute to Judge Ralph Adam Fine!
“No! Don’t ask me how I am. You already know the answer. I’m fine. I’m always Fine!” Back in 2007, Judge Fine told De novo, the Appellate Practice Section’s newsletter: “I love every minute being on the court. It has been 19 years and yet it seems as if I joined the court just yesterday. It […]
Lower burden of proof at ch. 980 discharge trial doesn’t violate due process
State v. Thornon F. Talley, 2015 WI App 4; case activity
A person committed as a sexually violent person under ch. 980 does not have a due process right to have the state prove at a discharge hearing that he is still a sexually violent person, so the clear and convincing evidence standard under § 980.09(3) is not facially unconstitutional.
Cases dismissed after completion of deferred prosecution agreement can’t be expunged under § 973.015
State v. Andrew R. Geurts, 2014AP1520-CR, District 4, 12/4/14 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court had no authority to expunge the record of Geurts’s criminal case after it was dismissed after his successful completion of a deferred prosecution agreement because § 973.015 applies only to the record of an offense for which the person has been found guilty.
“Does an innocent man have the right to be exonerated?”
So asks the title of an excellent article published on The Atlantic’s website, which lays bare the flaws of the reasoning and result in Youngblood v. Arizona, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), by relating the details of the case and Youngblood’s ultimate, almost happenstance, exoneration. As noted here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reviewing whether the Wisconsin constitution’s due process guarantee requires greater protection […]
Links to the Latest Legal News!
Judge Posner says the NSA should have unlimited access to your personal digital information. Read this PCWorld article for more on his views. Being a lawyer is hard. Being a public defender is even harder! Did you know that the challenging profession you’ve chosen will have a BIG pay off in your old age? Says […]
SCOW says ordering defendant to bare his platinum grill is ok; announces new opinion procedures
Practitioners take note. This opinion holds the seeds of controversy. SCOW’s ruling–that forcing a defendant to bare his teeth to the jury does not violate the 5th Amendment–is not so surprising. But Chief Justice Abrahamson’s concurrence, which announces the elimination of “opinion conferences” and new restrictions on the preparation of concurring and dissenting opinions seems alarming.
Jury instruction defining “drug” using dictionary was proper in ch. 51 commitment based on drug dependency
Marathon County v. Zachary W., 2014AP955, District 3, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Even if the circuit court erred it provided multiple definitions of the term “drug” when instructing the jury hearing a ch. 51 commitment case.
Evidence found sufficient to support termination of parental rights
State v. Faizel K., 2014AP2035 & 2014AP2036, District 1, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP2035; 2014AP2036
In this fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals holds there was sufficient evidence to support the orders terminating Faizel’s parental rights to his sons Mohammed K. and Robeul K.
SCOW: Defendant’s plea was invalid because he was mistakenly informed he faced life sentence if he went to trial
State v. Myron C. Dillard, 2014 WI 123, 11/26/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2013 WI App 108; majority opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson; case activity
Dillard accepted a plea bargain under which the state dropped a persistent repeater allegation, which carried a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release. But Dillard was never really subject to the persistent repeater law. When he discovered this fact after he was sentenced, he moved to withdraw his plea on the ground his decision to accept the plea bargain was based on his mistaken belief—one shared by the prosecutor, his lawyer, and the court—that he was facing a mandatory life sentence if he was convicted after a trial. The supreme court holds he is entitled to plea withdrawal because his plea was not knowing and voluntary and because his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to discover the persistent repeater law never applied to Dillard.
City and County of San Francisco v. Teresa Sheehan, USSC No. 13-1412, cert. granted 11/25/14
Questions presented: 1. Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody. 2. Whether it was clearly established that, even where an exception to the warrant requirement applied, an entry into a residence could […]
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.