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.

Virgil Hall, III v. Zenk, 7th Cir No. 11-3911, 8/29/12

seventh circuit decision Habeas – Jury Exposure to Extraneous Information  Subsequent to trial, Hall discovered that a juror’s son was a fellow inmate of Hall who initially told the juror that Hall was likely innocent, but later indicated that he “and several co-inmates had changed their mind about Hall and thought him guilty.” The (Indiana) state court ruled […]

Paul Eichwedel v. Chandler, 7th Cir No. 09-1031, 8/29/12

seventh circuit decision Habeas – Procedural Default Defense: Waiver by State  Procedural default (here, failure to perfect the appeal in state court, hence failure to exhaust the claim) is an affirmative defense which may be forfeited or waived by the State. The State expressly waived any failure-to-exhaust objection, hence the court proceeds to the merits. […]

Delinquency Proceedings – Disposition

State v. Noah L., 2012AP348, District 2, 8/29/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity After finding the proof sufficient to support a delinquency allegation, the trial court nonetheless declined to enter adjudication of delinquency, pending a report and recommendation from the Department of Human Services. The report was prepared, which included […]

Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 8/12

court of appeals publication orders, 8/29/12 On Point posts: 2012 WI App 89 State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller 2012 WI App 90 State v. Terry G. Vollbrecht 2012 WI App 93 State v. Troy L. Cameron 2012 WI App 95 State v. Brandon M. Melton

TPR – Best Interest of Child

State v. Robert T., 2012AP1110, District 1, 8/28/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity ¶11      Robert argues that because an adoptive resource was not in place for Anthony at the time of the dispositional hearing, the trial court essentially left Anthony without a family and did not make a finding in Anthony’s […]

Traffic Stop – Headlights Off

State v. Eric K. Fredlund, 2012AP742-CR, District 2, 8/22/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity An officer’s observation that a vehicle’s headlights “just appear[ed],” such that the officer couldn’t tell if the vehicle had been traveling down the roadway without lights, supported a traffic stop. ¶6        From the deputy’s observation of Fredlund’s vehicle […]

Terry Stop – Burden of Proof – Test

State v. Paul J. Mayek, 2012AP398-CR, District 3, 8/21/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity ¶8        Although we have concluded Rasmussen did not seize Mayek until after he approached Mayek’s vehicle, it is impossible to tell from Rasmussen’s testimony precisely when the seizure occurred.  Neither the parties, nor the circuit court, appear to […]

Joshua Resendez v. Wendy Knight, 7th Cir No. 11-1121, 8/20/12

seventh circuit decision Habeas Review – Right to Counsel – Collateral Attack  Resendez litigated an unsuccessful pro se challenge to revocation of his state court parole, on the ground that he had completed service of that sentence therefore wasn’t in fact on parole. Forced to litigate the issue on his own, he argues on federal […]

Tenisha Carter v. Thompson, 7th Cir No. 11-2202, 8/14/12

seventh circuit decision Habeas Review – Confessions – Voluntariness  Given the deferential nature of habeas review, the state court reasonably determined that a 16-year-old’s confession after 55 hours of interrogation was voluntary: Particularly in light of the highly deferential standard due to the state court, we have no reason to doubt that it took into account all […]

Christopher Mosley v. Atchison, 7th Cir No. 12-1083, 8/6/12

seventh circuit decision Habeas Procedure – Appellate Jurisdiction  Where a party has filed a timely notice of appeal to a judgment, and the district court subsequently enters an amended judgment nunc pro tunc (“now for then”) conforming language in the original judgment, an amended notice of appeal isn’t necessary to confer appellate jurisdiction: … The district court’s February […]

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.