On Point

Review of an unpublished, per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity; State’s petition for review

Issues (from the State’s petition):

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Wis. Stat. § 970.038 (2011-12) makes hearsay evidence admissible at a criminal defendant’s preliminary examination and permits the probable cause determination and bindover decision at a preliminary examination to be based “in whole or in part” on hearsay evidence. Do these provisions violate a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to confront adversary witnesses,

How many misdemeanor cases is too many for one public defender to take in one year?  Is it okay to advise a client to take a fantastic plea bargain without having a confidential conversation with him first?  What about skipping the investigation of  a client’s story?  In Wilbur v.  City of Mount Vernon, Case No. C11-1100RSL (12/4/13) the Western District of Washington slammed the “meet and plead” public defense systems in place in the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington. 

Cuts in public defender programs cause Sixth Amendment violations, says federal judge.  Sort of “no duh,” but it’s a big story.  Read more here.

Forty two states get an “F” in judicial ethics, according to a new report by The Center for Public Integrity.  Guess which side of the line Wisconsin fall on?  You guessed right, but we’re by no means the lowest “F” in the class.  Click here.

State v. Adamis Figueroa, 2013AP47-CR, District 1, 12/3/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the testimony of a police department employee about the content of two recorded conversations in Spanish between Figueroa and J.R., who alleged Figueroa had sexually assaulted her several years ago, when she was a child. (During one conversation J.R. wore a wire and spoke with Figueroa in person;

State v. Trenton James Dawson, 2013AP834-Cr, District 1, 12/3/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This decision points up a problem in Wisconsin case law: How does an appellate court analyze “harmless error” in a situation where the trial court denies a motion to suppress a defendant’s confession, which then causes him to plead guilty?

Police interrogated Dawson for 30-45 minutes in the back of a squad car about his friend’s death.  

State v. Kaleb K., 2013AP839, District 4, 11/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Kaleb posted a video on YouTube that depicted him “rapping” a song about his Spanish teacher. The song used “crude and vulgar sexual language” about the teacher. (¶2). (The trial court was harsher, characterizing the video as “obscene and hate-filled” and “shocking, hard to watch, really disgusting.” (¶3).) Based on the video Kaleb was charged in juvenile court with disorderly conduct under § 947.01(1) and unlawful use of a computerized communication system under § 947.0125(2)(d).

Jessica G. and Joshua G. v. Alicia L., 2013AP1843, District 2, 11/27/13 (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Issue: Whether Alicia’s L’s consent to the termination of her parental rights was voluntary.

¶6 The circuit court may accept a parent’s voluntary consent to TPR only after questioning the parent and determining that the consent is voluntary and informed. Wis. Stat. § 48.41(2)(a). In making its determination,

Fond du Lac County v. Randal B. Hopper, 2012AP1719, District 2, 11/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly concluded the defendant did not unlawfully refuse to provide a breath sample because the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for OWI:

¶10      Considering the collective knowledge of dispatch and the arresting deputy at the time the deputy arrested Hopper,

State v. Victoria M. Milewski, 2013AP1323, District 4, 11/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

After being arrested for OWI Milewski refused a blood test, saying her Christian Scientist beliefs prohibited her from allowing a needle to be inserted in her body; she offered to provide a urine sample instead. (¶¶2-3). At her refusal hearing she asserted her refusal to submit to the blood test for religious reasons was a reasonable objection under State v.