On Point

State v. Basil E. Ryan, Jr., 2011 WI App 21; case activity; Ryan BiC; State Resp.; Reply

¶26      “‘Judicial estoppel is a doctrine that is aimed at preventing a party from manipulating the judiciary as an institution by asserting a position in a legal proceeding and then [later] taking an inconsistent position.’”  State v. White,

Thomas Vitrano v. Milwaukee Police Department, 2010AP1987, District 1, 1/11/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; Resp. Br.

footnote 2:

We note with some frustration that neither party included a single citation to the record in their respective briefs in violation of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d).  Record cites are helpful to the court and are required even when the record is not voluminous. 

State v. Jonathan A. Meenen, 2009AP3107-CR, District 3, 1/11/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Meenen: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Meneen BiC; State Resp.; Reply

On a charge of 1st-degree sexual assault of a (5-year-old) child, evidence of Meneen’s prior juvenile adjudication for sexual contact with an 8-year-old was admissible:

• Acceptable purpose.

Docket

Decision below (CTA4)

Scotusblog page

The case appears to involve review of federal sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Consult Scotusblog page for further details.

Decision, 6/6/11

Docket

Decision below (311 S.W.3d 350, Mo. Ct. App)

Question Presented:

Contrary to the holding in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)–which held that a defendant must allege that, but for counsel’s error, the defendant would have gone to trial–can a defendant who validly pleads guilty successfully assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging instead that,

Docket

Decision below (CTA6)

Questions Presented:

Anthony Cooper faced assault with intent to murder charges. His counsel advised him to reject a plea offer based on a misunderstanding of Michigan law. Cooper rejected the offer, and he was convicted as charged. Cooper does not assert that any error occurred at the trial. On habeas review, the Sixth Circuit found that because there is a reasonable probability that Cooper would have accepted the plea offer had he been adequately advised,

certification; for Spaeth: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Spaeth BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Review granted 2/8/11

ISSUE

In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 460 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the government may compel incriminating testimony so long as it comes with a grant of use and derivative use immunity—that is to say,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; State Resp.

Interpreter

¶6        We begin with Kedinger’s claim that he was improperly denied an interpreter.  In Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31, ¶¶19, 21, 316 Wis. 2d 548, 766 N.W.2d 219, we noted that once a party properly notifies the trial court of the need for an interpreter,

State v. Tyler T., 2010AP784, District 2, 12/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication), affirmed, 2012 WI 52; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The prosecution isn’t prevented from appearing at a waiver recommendation staffing by the local health and human services agency, notwithstanding absence of the juvenile or his attorney.

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply

Confrontation – Generally

The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,