On Point

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 both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.

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. 524 (2005). Although the district court held that Freeman had waived the issue (right to conflict-free counsel) before raising it in his Rule 60 motion,

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 of the rule in Napue).

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reeves: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity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, reviewed and applied.

State v. Matthew P. Rick, 2010AP1521,District 4, 6/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rick: Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity

Warrantless blood draw is permissible under exigent circumstances doctrine, upon lawful arrest for non–jailable, civil violation. State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), followed.

State v. Charles L. Wendt, 2010AP2416, District 4, 6/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wendt: Michael C. Witt; case activity

“Momentary incursion” (or, “slight deviation”) into oncoming lane provided probable cause to stop motorist for violation of § 346.05. Having properly stopped Wendt, the officer had reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests, given the odor of alcohol and latter’s “glassy and bloodshot eyes”: “obvious and classic”

Donald Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, 6/23/11

The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement.

Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J. W., 2010AP2248, District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberta J.W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate, case activity

By his overweening involvement in the trial process, evincing his prejudgment of the case and asking “countless questions of the witnesses” – to an extent that the GAL objected that “the judge was abusing his function and was not being fair to Roberta -,

State v. Keith A. Stich, 2010AP2849-CR, District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stich: Andrew Joseph Burgoyne; case activity

Stich’s failure to heed an officer’s instruction to stop – instead, Stich walked away and into his house and encouraged his companion Lidbloom to do likewise – established the crime of obstructing. The police were investigating an earlier incident, and “Stich’s actions, which delayed the deputies’ ability to question Lidbloom,

State v. Blair T. Davis, 2011AP320,District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Davis: Daniel J. Posanski; case activity

Arrest by campus policeman, outside his jurisdiction, was justifiable under either citizen’s arrest, or fresh pursuit, doctrines.

¶5        The fresh pursuit doctrine states that any Wisconsin peace officer may pursue and arrest a suspect “anywhere in the state” for a violation of any law or ordinance that the officer is authorized to enforce as long as the officer is in “fresh pursuit.”  Wis.