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.
Mental Commitment – Involuntary Medication
Green County v. Janeen J. C., 2011AP2603, District 4, 5/31/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Janeen J.C.: Katie R. York, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
The trial court, before entering an involuntary medication order, failed to make requisite findings that Janeen J.C. wasn’t competent to make an informed choice, Virgil D. v. Rock County, 189 Wis. 2d 1,
Double Jeopardy – Retrial after Mistrial
State v. Susan M. Thorstad, 2011AP2854-CR, District 4, 5/31/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not publishable); for Thorstad: Charles W. Giesen; case activity
Mistrial was granted after the arresting officer, in contravention of pretrial order, testified that this was Thorstad’s second OWI. However, the officer was unaware of the order, because the prosecutor had failed to advise of same, an omission the trial court attributed to “laxness on the part of the State.” The trial court then ruled that,
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 5/12
court of appeals publication orders, 5/31/12
On Point posts from this list:
2012 WI App 55 State v. Shawn M. Klingelhoets
2012 WI App 58 State v. Thomas M. Pocian
Restitution – Finality and Double Jeopardy
State v. Eric Archie Armstrong, District 2/1, 2010AP1056-CR, 5/30/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Armstrong: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
Setting restitution four years after sentencing didn’t violate double jeopardy principles, turning principally on whether Johnson “had a legitimate expectation of finality in the first judgment,” State v. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, ¶15, 313 Wis.
State v. Travis R. Anderson, 2011AP2005, District 3, 5/30/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anderson: Dennis M. Melowski, Chad A Lanning; case activity
Traffic Stop
Probable cause found to support stop for unsafe lane deviation, § 346.13(1).
¶12 Here, DeNovi testified that, while traveling in a group of three vehicles, he observed Anderson’s vehicle drift into the outside lane for approximately 100 yards and then swerve back to the inside lane.
Town of Grand Chute v. William F. Thomas, 2011AP2702, District 2, 5/30/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas: John M. Carroll; case activity
Traffic Stop – Duration
¶8 Thomas argues Schellinger lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop because the only fact supporting Schellinger’s belief that Thomas was operating while intoxicated was the odor of intoxicants. Thomas asserts the odor of intoxicants does not, by itself, constitute reasonable suspicion that a driver is operating while intoxicated.
Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop
State v. Jason T. Moynihan, 2011AP2858-CR, District 2, 5/30/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Moynihan: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
¶8 In this case, the deputy pulled over the vehicle driven by Moynihan because he believed it was being driven by Saeger and believed that Saeger’s driver’s license was revoked. The question is whether the deputy’s belief, or suspicion, was reasonable.
Search Warrants: Court Commissioner Authority to Issue
State v. Douglas Meier Williams, 2012 WI 59, on review of court of appeals certification request; for Williams: Stephen P. Hurley, Dean A. Strang, Marcus J. Berghahn, Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity
Wis. Stat. § 757.69(1)(b), giving circuit court commissioners authority to issue search warrants, is constitutional.
¶3 Throughout Wisconsin’s history, including before the ratification of the Wisconsin Constitution, non-judges have been authorized by statute to issue search warrants.
Habeas Review – Sufficiency of Evidence
Coleman v. Lorenzo Johnson, USSC No. 11-1053, 5/29/12 (per curiam), reversing 446 Fed. Appx. 531 (3rd Cir. 2011)
We have made clear that Jackson claims face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference. First, on direct appeal, “it is the responsibility of the jury—not the court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial.
The Plotkin Analysis: Daubert, earned release, castle doctrine, retail theft, access to juvenile records, hearsay at preliminary hearings
Now that the 2011-12 Legislative session has ended and all pending bills have been acted on by the Governor, I wanted to offer a brief list of the greatest hits in new legislation.
2011 Wisconsin Act 2 – Tort Reform
- Sections 33-38 of Act 2 apply the federal Daubert rules regarding expert witnesses.
- Act 2 took effect onFebruary 1, 2011.
2011 Wisconsin Act 38 – Repeal Earned Release
- Act 38 repealed the provisions in 2009 Wisconsin Act 28 that created an Earned Release program for inmates.
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.