On Point

State v. Jose A. Arevalo-Viera, 2021AP1937, 7/25/23, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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

State of Wisconsin v. M.S.H., 2023AP692, District I, 8/1/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

A parent’s non-cooperation with an involuntary TPR leads to a default judgment and, despite some compelling arguments, COA rejects her invitation to reweigh the dispositional evidence and reverse the order terminating her parental rights.

State v. James P. Killian, 2023 WI 52, 06/21/23, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The state’s threat to add new charges against Killian during a trial that ended in a mistrial didn’t expand the scope of the protection against double jeopardy to those new charges.

State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, 2023 WI 49, 6/20/23, reversing and remanding a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Reaffirming that the Department of Corrections, not the circuit court, is responsible for regulating the day-to-day affairs of persons being supervised by DOC, the supreme court sends this case back to the circuit court for it to either modify the supervision condition it ordered in this case or clarify how it is consistent with the law.

State v. Jovan T. Mull, 2023 WI 26, 4/4/23, reversing a per curiam decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court rejects Mull’s claims that his trial lawyer was ineffective at his trial, though it reaffirms that trial counsel’s strategic decisions are not given automatic deference, but are judged for their objective reasonableness under all the circumstances.

Winnebago County v. D.E.W., 2023AP215, District II, 7/26/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; petition for review granted 12/12/23; dismissed as improvidently granted 5/14/24 case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another appeal of a medication order, COA concludes the County sufficiently cleared legal hurdles meant to protect citizens from the involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs.

Samia v. United States, USSC No. 22-196, 143 S. Ct. 2004, June 23, 2023, affirming U.S. v. Hunter, et al., Nos. 18-3074-cr, 18-3489-cr, 19-790-cr (2nd Cir. Apr. 20, 2022) (not reported); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

A majority of the Supreme Court affirms the use of a confession of one non-testifying co-defendant against another defendant, and its rationale shows, in the words of the dissenters, that the majority thinks the rule in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), “should go.” (Kagan dissent at 10; Jackson dissent at 1).

Haaland et al. v. Brackeen et al., USSC No. 21-376, 143 S.Ct. 1609 (June 15, 2023), affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating and remanding 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

This is a guest post by Attorney Matthew Giesfeldt of the Madison Appellate office, who is also the SPD’s Family Defense Practice Coordinator.

The Indian Child Welfare Act, or “ICWA,” is a federal law enacted in response to concern that nontribal public and private agencies were removing Native American children from their homes to non-tribal placements at “an alarmingly high percentage[.]” Slip op. at 2. Wisconsin codified ICWA as state law in 2009. Wis. Stat. § 48.028. Under both the federal and state statutes, agencies that place children out of the home (such as local child-protection agencies) must adhere to stricter requirements to remove a tribal child than they must follow to remove a non-tribal child. For example, tribes may intervene in child placement cases, and agencies seeking to remove tribal children from tribal homes must engage in “active efforts” to help the parents and prevent the removal. Wis. Stat. § 48.028(4)(e)2.

In these consolidated cases, the biological parents and each foster parent couple seeking to adopt agreed that a tribal child should be adopted by nontribal parents, but a tribe intervened in opposition to the others’ plans. The parents filed a federal suit challenging ICWA, which three states joined. In one of the cases, the adoption was denied based upon the tribe’s intervening objection, though in the other two cases the tribe ultimately abandoned its objection, allowing the adoption to go through. Slip op. at 6-8.

The Court addressed four separate constitutional challenges to ICWA: