On Point

City of Sheboygan v. Benjamin B. Schultz, 2011AP904, District 2, 11/09/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schultz: Casey J. Hoff; case activity

Stop of Schultz’s vehicle supported by community caretaker doctrine where, as Schultz drove past officer conducting an otherwise unrelated traffic stop, Schultz’s passenger door opened up and someone inside of Schultz’s vehicle yelled out.

¶7        While the community caretaker function is not like a typical search and seizure,

 Posting will be light to non-existent till approximately November 16. Some links in the meantime:

Michael O’Hear, “Supreme Court Review: Overarching Themes”

Richard D. Friedman, “Coping with the Melendez-Diaz line”

Washington supreme court: county noise ordinance unconstitutional (maj. op.; diss1; diss2)

Margaret Flynt, “The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon”

Samuel Morgan v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 10-3155, 11/7/11

seventh circuit decision

Habeas – Recantation 

The Illinois state court didn’t mishandle either the facts or applicable law, and its rejection of State witness Prater’s post-trial recantation as incredible wasn’t unreasonable. The petitioner’s task is to “show[] that the state court determined an underlying factual issue against the clear and convincing weight of the evidence” – though the recantation here is consistent with the physical evidence,

Miller: SCOTUSblog page; consolidated with Jackson: SCOTUSblog page

Question Presented (from SCOTUSblog):

Whether imposing a sentence of life without possibility of parole on an offender who was fourteen at the time he committed capital murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Sound at least vaguely familiar? It should: our supreme court resolved that very question last Term,

Bobby v. Archie Dixon, USSC No. 10-1540, 11/7/11 (per curiam), reversing Dixon v. Houk, 627 F.3d 553 (6th Cir 2010)

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v.

State v. Jeffrey T. Turner, 2011AP413-CR, District 4, 11/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Turner: Cody Wagner; case activity

The trial court erred in failing to make a sua sponte inquiry into necessity for shackling Turner during his jury trial. Although the court of appeals recently held that a trial court has no such duty to inquire, where the restraints are hidden from view, 

State v. Joseph J. Johnson, 2011AP806-CR, District 4, 11/3/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnson: Rebecca J. Vahle; case activity

Trial counsel’s failure to move to strike several jurors for cause didn’t require Machner hearing:

¶12      In State v. Traylor, 170 Wis. 2d 393, 399-400, 489 N.W.2d 626 (Ct. App. 1992), this court held that a defendant’s trial counsel was deficient for failing to ask appropriate follow-up questions of jurors who had admitted bias.  

City of Sheboygan v. Kathy L. Reindl-Knaak, 2011AP1090, District 2, 11/2/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reindl-Knaal: Casey J. Hoff; case activity

¶7        The parties do not dispute that Reindl-Knaak’s vehicle had an expired front license plate, that the temporary plate affixed to the rear of the vehicle was later determined to be valid, and that Jaeger had probable cause to continue Reindl-Knaak’s detention based on the odor of alcohol and her “slow” speech.  

Chester B. v. Larry D., 2011AP926, District 2, 11/2/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Larry D.: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Entry of default against parent imprisoned out of state violated his right to due process under the circumstances. On receipt of the petition and summons, Larry contacted the petitioner’s attorney and said he wanted representation. The attorney then contacted the SPD.

State v. Frank Plum, 2011AP956-CR, District 3, 11/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Plum: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The officer who stopped Plum for suspected drunk driving testified that Plum refused to answer questions about the type or amount of medication he had consumed: this amounted to an impermissible comment on Plum’s right to silence, notwithstanding that questioning occurred before custodial interrogation (thus,