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
Randy White, Warden, v. Robert Keith Woodall, USSC No. 12-704, cert granted 6/27/13
Questions presented: 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief on the trial court’s failure to provide a no adverse inference instruction even though this Court has not “clearly established” that such an instruction is required in a capital penalty phase when a non-testifying defendant has pled guilty to the crimes […]
McCullen v. Coakley, USSC No. 12-1168, cert granted 6/24/13
Questions presented: 1. Massachusetts has a law that makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic employees or agents acting within the scope of employment to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility.” Did the First Circuit err […]
Blood draw at jail by EMT was reasonable
State v. Constance Ilene Osborne, 2012AP2540-CR, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity The results of a blood draw done by an EMT at the jail after Osborne was arrested for OWI were admissible because the method and manner of the blood draw were reasonable and the EMT was […]
A reminder about preserving arguments
State v. Brian Kiale Little, 2012AP2162, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity A year after Little pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon he filed a motion for return of the gun and ammunition involved in the offense. The circuit court denied the motion because § 968.20(1m)(b) prohibits […]
“Bullshit” newly-discovered evidence and self-representation on 974.06 motions
State v. Joseph Jordan, 2011AP1249, District 1, 6/25/13; case activity; (not recommended for publication). What a challenging case. A jury convicted Jordan of first-degree reckless homicide and other crimes. He lost his direct appeal and then filed a pro se §974.06 motion requesting various forms of relief, including a new trial based on: (a) newly-discovered evidence, and (b) ineffective assistance of counsel. […]
SCOTUS: ICWA doesn’t apply to Indian father who abandons child prior to birth
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Birl, USSC No. 12-399, reversing and remanding 298 S.C. 625, 731 S.E.2d 550 (2012). SCOTUSblog coverage here. TPR lawyers, this one is for you. The dissent says the casual reader of the majority opinion could be forgiven for thinking that Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 points to only one sensible […]
U.S. Supreme Court: Investment recommendation is not “obtainable property” for purposes of Hobbs Act prosecution
Giridhar C. Sekhar v. United States, USSC No. 12-357, 6/26/13 United States Supreme Court decision, reversing U.S. v. Sekhar, 683 F.3d 436 (2nd Cir. 2012) Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute “the obtaining of property from another” for purposes of a prosecution under the Hobbs Act, […]
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Deadline for requesting refusal hearing cannot be extended
Village of Elm Grove v. Richard K. Brefka, 2013 WI 54, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion; Justice Bradley, for a unanimous court; case activity The 10-day deadline for filing a request for a refusal hearing, §§ 343.305(9)(a)4. and (10)(a), is mandatory, and may not be extended based on excusable neglect. Brefka was issued a […]
TPR — Continuing CHIPS ground; constitutionality as applied to parent with cognitive limitations
State v. Ebony D., 2013AP619, 2013AP620, & 2013AP621, District 1, 6/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP619; 2013AP620; 2013AP621 The continuing need for protection and services grounds for termination of parental rights, § 48.415(2), is not unconstitutional as applied to Ebony D. because the evidence shows she was able to meet the […]
OWI — foundation for expert testimony regarding BAC at time of driving
City of Port Washington v. David A. Thompson, 2012AP2500, District 2, 6/26/13; court of appeals opinion (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity The trial court did not err in allowing Hackworthy, the state’s chemical test expert, to give her opinion that Thompson’s BAC at the time of driving was 0.15 based on average alcohol elimination […]
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.