On Point

County of Sheboygan v. Jeffrey L. Bubolz, 2010AP2997, District 2, 4/6/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bubolz: Casey J. Hoff; case activity

Ignoring a warning sign that a road is closed except to local traffic creates reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, even though the sign was an “unofficial” one put up by the contractor.

¶11      Failure to adhere to official traffic signs is a violation of WIS.

William Kerr v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-1032, 3/28/11 – Part III

7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal)

Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part I (IAC – adequate provocation defense) is here; Part II (default; standard of review),

7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal)

Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part I (IAC – adequate provocation defense) is here; Part III (evidentiary hearing, GP advice), here.

Habeas – Procedural Fault

Kerr’s pro se § 974.06 motion asserted ineffective assistance of counsel as a ground for relief.

William Kerr v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-1032, 3/28/11 – Part I

7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal)

Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part II (procedural default) is here; Part III (evidentiary hearing, guilty plea advice),

Docket

Decision below (621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir 2010))

Question Presented:

Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search of every individual arrested for any minor offense no matter what the circumstances.

Scotusblog page

Caselaw in this Circuit has long rejected suspicionless jail strip searches for minor offenses. Mary Beth G.

State v. Bryan Peter Leather, 2010AP354-CR, District 1, 4/5/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Leather: Rex Anderegg; case activity

Leather argues he was entitled to call the prosecutor as a witness to testify about the complainant’s hearsay statements to her. The 6th amendment right to present a defense (confrontation and compulsory process) isn’t absolute and in particular doesn’t extend to irrelevant evidence. The offer of proof in support of admissibility shows that the complainant’s statements to the prosecutor weren’t inconsistent with her testimony,

City of West Allis v. Susan Schneidler, 2010AP2531, District 1, 4/5/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schneidler: Thomas C. Simon; case activity

Tip from an identified citizen informant – that she had seen Schneidler drinking alcohol before driving off – supported stop of Schneidler’s car, without requiring independent corroboration.

¶18      In short, Parr was a reliable witness who told police that she personally observed Schneidler drink alcohol and then drive and who made herself available to the police for questioning. 

Docket

Decision below (3rd Cir No. 07-2163, 5/28/10)

Question Presented (by Scotusblog):

For purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner’s petition for federal habeas relief, what is the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from this Court qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

Cert petition

Here’s the pitch Greene successfully made:

This case presents a fundamental question of federal habeas procedure in the post-AEDPA world: What is the temporal cutoff for when decisions from this Court count as “clearly established Federal law”?

on bypass petition; for Nordberg: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issue:

Whether someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4).

The court of appeals held, in State v. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60, 324 Wis. 2d 465, 782 N.W.2d 443,

Gordon Sussman v. Jenkins, 7th Cir No. 09-3940, 4/1/11

7th circuit decision, granting habeas relief in State v. Sussman, 2007AP687-CR; in chambers opinion on stay

Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation

The state court unreasonably restricted Sussman’s cross-examination of his chief accuser, and thus violated his right to confrontation, by precluding him from inquiring into the complainant’s prior false allegations of sexual misconduct.