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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
State v. Andre L. Thompson, 2010AP3146-CR, District 1, 6/28/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thompson: Gregg H. Novack; case activity Traffic Stop – Ordering Driver Out of Car ¶6 Thompson contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that the officer did not violate Thompson’s Fourth Amendment rights by ordering Thompson to get out of his car following the traffic […]
Recommitment, evidence sufficient to meet “if treatment were withdrawn” test
Brown County v. Kevin Q., 2011AP208, District 3, 6/28/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kevin Q.: Andrew Hinkel, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity ¶10 We conclude the evidence sufficiently shows there is a substantial likelihood Kevin would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn. Kevin acknowledged he has […]
TPR – Stipulated Element
Florence County Dept. of Human Services v. Edward S., Jr., 2011AP385, District 3, 6/28/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Edward S.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity Counsel’s stipulation without the parent’s on-record assent to the first element of TPR grounds (child placed outside home at least 6 months under CHIPS order) […]
Martel v. Kenneth Clair, USSC No. 10-1265, cert granted 6/27/11
Docket Lower court decision: Clair v. Ayers, 9th Cir. Nos. 05-99005, 08-75135, 11/17/10 Question Presented: At the end of ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent suddenly complained about and sought replacement of his court-appointed public defender with a new appointed lawyer. The district court refused, explaining that “it appears Petitioner’s […]
U.S. v. Antoine Jones, USSC No. 10-1259, cert granted 6/27/11
Docket Decision below: United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), reh’g denied sub nom. United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010) Questions Presented: 1. [from Petition:] Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment. 2. [added […]
Messerschmidt v. Millender, USC No. 10-704, cert granted 6/27/11
Docket Decision below: Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F. 3d 1016 (9th Cir 2010). reversing panel decision, 564 F.3d 1143 Questions Presented (from Petition): This Court has held that police officers who procure and execute warrants later determined invalid are entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long […]
Exclusionary Rule: Good-Faith Reliance on Judicial Precedence
Willie Gene Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, 6/16/11 … The question here is whether to apply this sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance with binding precedent that is later overruled. Because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to […]
Joe Freeman v. Chandler, 7th Cir No. 10-1467, 6/20/11
seventh circuit court of appeals decision Habeas – Successive Petition – Rule 60(b) Motion A Rule 60 motion for relief from (habeas) judgment amounts to an impermissible successive petition – which the district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain – if it raises arguments forbidden by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) or (2), Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. […]
USA v. Rondell Freeman, 7th Cir No. 09-4043, 6/17/11
7th circuit court of appeals decision Prosecutorial Misconduct – Knowing Use of False Testimony When the government obtains a conviction through the knowing use of false testimony, it violates a defendant’s due process rights. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 679 n.8 (1984) (discussing the evolution […]
Sentencing – Review
State v. David A. Reeves, 2010AP1590-CR, District 4, 6/23/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reeves: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity Maximum sentence for obstructing (9 months) upheld against argument it was a) harsh and excessive; b) based on improper factors. State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, […]
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.