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.
Forfeiture Action: Personal Jurisdiction
State v. Robert M. Schmitt, 2012 WI App 121 (recommended for publication); case activity
Although “the summons, complaint and the supporting affidavit must each be authenticated as a condition of personal jurisdiction when commencing a forfeiture action,” ¶1, an authentication defect attributable to a clerk’s error is merely technical and doesn’t impair jurisdiction.
¶4 In Schmitt’s case, the first page of the summons and the first page of the complaint were each authenticated,
Jonathan Edward Boyer v. Louisiana, USSC No. 11-9953, cert granted 10/5/12
Whether a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution’s choice to seek the death penalty, should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes?
Lower court opinion (State v. Boyer, 56 So.3d 1119 (La. App. 2011)
The issue appears to be whether inability to assign counsel is a “systemic breakdown”
Allen Ryan Alleyne v. U.S., USSC No. 11-9335, cert granted 10/5/12
Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled.
Lower court opinion (U.S. v. Alleyne, CTA4 No. 11-4208, 12/15/11 (unpublished))
Alleyne was convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery,
Expert Testimony – Retrograde Extrapolation (BAC)
County of Marathon v. Paul R. DeBuhr, District 3, 2011AP2959, 10/2/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
¶13 At the outset, we observe that DeBuhr was given the opportunity to raise his concerns about Hackworthy’s testimony and retrograde extrapolation in the circuit court but failed to do so. DeBuhr never responded to the County’s brief in support of admitting the testimony and never offered any argument in support of his earlier assertion that he believed retrograde extrapolation was “not proper science.” As a result,
Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence -Jury of Six
Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity
Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence
Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:
¶12 Here,
Conspiracy, § 939.31 (to Commit Homicide) – Agreement
State v. Frederick L. Lucht, 2011AP1644-CR, District 4, 9/27/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The record supports the existence of an agreement between Lucht and another to commit the crime of first-degree intentional homicide.
¶28 Lucht refers us to cases standing for propositions that a conspiracy cannot be based on a mere “agreement to negotiate,” see United States v.
State v. Julius C. Burton, 2011AP450-CR, WSC review granted 9/27/12
on review of unpublished decision; case activity
Issues (composed by on Point)
1. Whether Burton is entitled to a Machner hearing on his postconviction motion asserting that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that Burton could pursue a bifurcated (NGI) plea along with his guilty plea, and have a jury determine whether he was not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 9/12
court of appeals publication orders, 9/27/12
On Point posts:
2012 WI App 99 State v. Michael Anthony Lock
2012 WI App 101 State v. Mark M. Benson
2012 WI App 103 State v. Cody A. Gibson
2012 WI App 104 State v. Jason M. Jacobs
2012 WI App 105 State v.
Search & Seizure – Mistake of Law
State v. Pamela L. Hammersley, 2012AP1131-CR, District 2, 9/26/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Stop of vehicle, assertedly for violating local trespassing ordinance, held not supportable:
¶3 It is settled law that a stop cannot be based on an officer’s mistaken understanding of the law. State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 3-4, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct.
TPR – “Relevant Background Information” Forming Basis for Expert’s Opinion
Buffalo County Department of Health & Human Services v. Jennifer C., 2012AP1564, District 3, 9/25/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Though not “independently admissible,” a long list of damaging items related to Jennifer’s background (such as theparent’s father’s sexual abuse of his daughters, and Jennifer’s own emotional and sexual abuse by her adoptive parents) was admissible to show the basis for an expert’s opinion that Jennifer was unlikely to meet conditions for return of her children:
¶16 Wisconsin Stat.
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.