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
No error in failure to give instructions on lesser included homicide charges where defendant’s trial testimony didn’t support them
State v. Tammy S. Cole, 2013AP947-CR, District 4, 2/27/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity The trial court did not err in declining to instruct on second-degree reckless homicide or homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon, as Cole requested at her trial on one count of first degree intentional […]
Links to the Latest Legal News!
In a nod to the Oscars, can you name the best legal movies of all times? First guess, then see Above the Law’s post here. The law you won’t be told! Enjoy this short, funny video explaining juror nullification–but don’t show it to prospective jurors. Or maybe you should. 🙂 Surreptitious videos of SCOTUS arguments! […]
Conviction under § 947.01 for “violent, abusive and otherwise disorderly conduct” qualified as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence”
Robert W. Evans, Jr., v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Justice, 2014 WI App 31, overruled by Doubek v. Kaul, 2022 WI 31; case activity A conviction for disorderly conduct under § 947.01 may qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A), thus depriving the defendant of the right to possess a firearm. Evans’s […]
SCOTUS: The military controls all of the property within the boundaries of a military installation
United States v. Apel, USSC 12-1038, 2/26/14 United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding United States v. Apel, 676 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012). Federal law makes it a crime to reenter a “military . . . installation” after having been ordered not to do so “by any officer or person in command.” 18 U.S.C. § […]
Allowing testimony of foster parent at TPR grounds hearing was not improper
Wood County Human Services Dep’t v. Melanie M., 2013AP2814, 2013AP2815, & 2013AP2816, District 4, 2/27/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP2814; 2013AP2815; 2013AP2816 Foster parent testimony during the grounds phase of a TPR proceeding has the potential to be prejudicial because it creates a risk the jury will reach a verdict […]
Officer’s approaching person on street and engaging him in conversation wasn’t a seizure
State v. Keith R. Friederick, 2013AP1609, District 4, 2/27/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity Friederick was not seized by officer who approached him on the street and said sought to talk to him, applying United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980), along with State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, ¶53, […]
Good-bye to Gerondale: Enhanced misdemeanor sentences are governed by the basic 75% and 25% rules
State v. Lee Thomas Lasanske, 2014 WI App 26; case activity In a decision that may finally settle the issue of how to bifurcate enhanced misdemeanor sentences, the court of appeals holds that § 973.01(2)(c)1.’s prohibition against using an enhancer to increase a period of extended supervision does not apply to enhanced misdemeanor sentences. Instead, enhanced misdemeanor […]
SCOTUS: Police may conduct warrantless search of jointly-occupied dwelling if they first remove objecting occupant and then obtain co-occupant’s consent
Fernandez v. California, USSC 12-7822, 2/25/14, affirming People v. Fernandez, 145 Cal Rptr.3rd 51 (Cal Ct. App. 2012). Docket here; SCOTUSblog analysis of decision here; Orin Kerr’s “Five Thoughts on Fernandez” here; On Point analysis of cert grant here Police officers may, without a warrant, search a jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants […]
SCOTUS: No right to contest grand jury’s probable cause determination when challenging pre-trial freeze of assets
Kaley v. United States, USSC 12-464, 2/25/14 United States Supreme Court decision, affirming United States v. Kaley, 677 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2012) In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court holds that when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order under 18 U.S.C. § 853(e) freezes assets that are potentially subject to forfeiture but which the defendant needs to retain counsel, the defendant is […]
SCOTUS: Trial lawyer’s failure to seek funds to hire better expert, based on mistaken belief about funding cap, amounts to deficient performance
Anthony Ray Hinton v. Alabama, USSC 13-6440, 2/24/14 (per curiam), vacating Hinton v. State, __So. 3d__, 2013WL 598122 (2/15/13). Docket here. Trial lawyers, listen up. Check your expert witness funding cap before settling for an “expert” you know is sub par. In 1985, managers of 3 different restaurants were robbed and shot—each with two .38 […]
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.