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.
Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to demand speedy trial, communicate with defendant, and impeach the victim. Sentencing — unduly harsh sentence.
State v. Jerry Lee Carson, 2012AP2616-CR, District 1, 9/17/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel
Carson, convicted of second degree recklessly endangering safety, claimed his trial lawyer was ineffective on various grounds. The court of appeals holds counsel was not ineffective for failing to:
- Demand a speedy trial. Carson was not prejudiced by the delay beyond the statutory speedy trial deadlines.
Court of appeals: of curative instructions and smelly skunks
State v. Omar J. Smith, 2012AP863-CR, District 1, 9/10/13; (not recommended for publication); case activity
A jury convicted Smith of first-degree reckless homicide while armed as party to a crime and a host of other crimes. Two issues are noteworthy.
Miranda-Edwards issue: Police began questioning Smith while he was in custody. He invoked his right to counsel, so they stopped. They re-initiated questioning (with fresh Miranda warnings) during which Smith said things like “I kind of want a lawyer present,
Law of the case doctrine — procedure on remand
State v. Gary Wieczorek, 2012AP2217-CR, District 3, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court had previously held that Wieczorek was unlawfully seized by the police on his front porch, but the court of appeals reversed that holding and remanded the case for further proceedings. (¶¶2-4). On remand, Wieczorek again alleged the seizure was unlawful because there were no exigent circumstances.
TPR — improper “golden rule” argument to jury
State v. Samantha S., 2013AP1503 & 2013AP1504, District 1, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1503; 2013AP1504
During closing arguments at the fact-finding hearing the guardian ad litem referred to Samantha’s failure to keep visitation appointments and said this failure confused the children, who as a consequence were becoming attached to the foster caregivers. (¶2). The court holds this statement did not amount to an improper “golden rule”
Ch. 51 mental health commitment — sufficiency of evidence to extend commitment and order involuntary medication
Outagamie County v. Aaron V., 2013AP808, District 3, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence supported an extension of Aaron’s ch. 51 commitment even though Dr. Dave, the county’s expert, did not specifically testify Aaron would “decompensate” or become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn and did not provide reasons for his opinion that Aaron would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn:
¶15 ….
Securities fraud — factual basis for plea; definition of “security”
State v. James C. Hudson, 2013 WI App 120; case activity
Hudson’s untrue statements to persons to get them to invest in his country music career provided a factual basis for his plea to two violations of ch. 551’s prohibition against making untrue statements of material fact in connection with the sale of a “security” because his conduct involved “securities.” A security includes an “investment contract,” which under § 551.102(28)(d)1.
Court of Appeals reverses 1st degree intentional homicide conviction based on State’s violation of § 904.10
State v. Raphfael Lyfold Myrick, 2013 WI App 123; case activity
Wow! District 1 is really on a roll. Twice in less than one week they’ve reversed a conviction for first-degree murder. Last Friday it was State v. Wilson, 2011AP1803, a summary reversal and hence not summarized by On Point. Wednesday, it was State v. Myrick, the subject of today’s post.
Right to a public trial. Lay testimony about events depicted on surveillance video.
State v. Amos L. Small, 2013 WI App 117; case activity
Right to a public trial
The circuit court appropriately excluded a person from the courtroom under State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, after the prosecutor asserted the had threatened a state’s witness after her testimony. (¶9). While Small’s lawyer objected to the exclusion of the person on the grounds it violated Small’s right to a public trial and was based on a hearsay statement,
TPR — consideration of harm of severing family connection; rejection of guardianship by paternal grandmother
State v. Angie S., 2013AP1412, District 1, 9/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals rejects Angie S.’s arguments that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when terminating her parental rights by: (1) failing to properly consider the effect of termination on the child’s biological family; and (2) inadequately considering whether the child’s paternal grandmother was a suitable candidate for guardianship.
OWI — probable cause to arrest; information from ER nurse regarding blood alcohol test
Marathon County v. Eric G. Fischer, 2013AP760, District 3, 9/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police lacked probable cause to arrest Fischer because a “tip” from an ER nurse that Fischer’s BAC was “0.15 percent” did not provide a reliable basis to conclude Fischer was operating while intoxicated.
Fischer was the operator of a motorcycle that crashed. (¶2). Police collected scant information at the scene before Fischer was taken to the hospital.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.