On Point

Jones v. Cromwell, 75 F.4th 722 (7th Cir. 2022).

In a disappointing defense loss, the Seventh Circuit holds that, at least under these circumstances, the defendant’s request for a “public pretender” was sufficiently ambiguous such that police had no obligation to cease their interrogation.

Waupaca County v. G.T.H., 2022AP2146, District IV, 8/24/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Contrary to what has seemed like a steady stream of unsuccessful hearsay-based Chapter 51 appeals, see e.g., here, here, here, here, and here, G.T.H. succussfully convinces the court of appeals to reverse his recommitment, which was based on extensive hearsay testimony.

Kenosha County v. L.A.T., 2022AP1730, District II, 8/23/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

L.A.T. (“Linda”) convinced the court of appeals the circuit court erred by admitting and relying on hearsay testimony from a psychiatrist to support its dangerousness finding. However, the court holds that sufficient non-hearsay evidence established that “Linda’s pattern of anger and aggressive behavior that caused others to seek law enforcement assistance…was sufficient to establish that others were in reasonable fear of violent behavior and/or serious physical harm at Linda’s hands.” (Op., ¶3).

Winnebago County v. J.L.C., 2023AP200, District II, 8/23/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Although most litigators believed that arguments about mootness in 51 appeals were now settled, COA resurrects the mootness doctrine to deny relief in this appeal of an expired order.

State v. Richard Chad Quinlan, 2022AP1855-1857, 8/17/2023, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

Two DNR wardens suspected Quinlan had been engaging in some illegal hunting practices. They approached his cabin in plain clothes and in an unmarked truck. Quinlan’s mother was outside; the wardens identified themselves and said they wanted to talk to Quinlan. The mother said he was home and pointed to the cabin. When the wardens knocked on the door Quinlan’s girlfriend, who one warden recognized, responded “yeah” when asked if they could come in. Within three seconds Quinlan, who was inside, also said it was alright for the wardens to be there. The wardens left after some conversation and Quinlan was eventually cited for violations.

Tyler A. Gonzales v. Cheryl Eplett, No. 22-2393, 8/9/23 (Available on Westlaw as 2023 WL 5086451)

In a case demonstrating the full power of AEDPA’s stringent standard of review, the 7th Circuit is powerless to grant a new trial despite its palpable discomfort when evaluating the performance of defense counsel.

Winnebago County v. P.D.G., 2022AP2005, District II, 8/16/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another appeal of a medication order attacking the sufficiency of the evidence as to the statute’s requirement that the person receive a “reasonable” or “adequate” explanation of, among other things, the advantages and disadvantages of proposed medication, COA once again affirms in a decision highlighting uncertainty in our law.

State v. Jose A. Arevalo-Viera, 2021AP1937, 7/25/23, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In a case alleging a disturbing sexual assault, the court of appeals exercises a deferential standard of review to uphold the lower court’s decision to admit other-acts evidence regarding an alleged attempted assault occurring on the same day.

Dane County DHS v. S.M., 2023AP607, 6/8/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available).

In an appeal challenging the circuit court’s decision to terminate S.M.’s parental rights, the court of appeals concludes the court did not need to receive “direct evidence” from the proposed adoptive parents before exercising its discretion and entering a termination order.

State v. Roger James Gollon, 2023AP86-CR, District 4, 7/27/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Gollon moved to suppress evidence police obtained after they entered his home without a warrant. The trouble, the court of appeals holds, with Gollon’s claim is that police utlized an accepted “knock-and-talk” investigating technique to gain entry to the curtilage of Gollon’s home and that “all remaining challenged conduct” was excused by the “emergency aid” exception to the Fourth Amendment.