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
Richard M. Fischer v. Ozaukee Co. Circ. Ct., 741 F. Supp. 2d 944 (E.D. Wis. 2010)
federal habeas decision (pdf file: here), granting relief in State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6; respondent’s Rule 59 motion to amend judgment denied 1/7/11 Habeas Review – Right to Present Defense – Expert Opinion, Based PBT Preventing Fisher from adducing expert opinion he wasn’t driving with a prohibited alcohol content based on analysis of his PBT, […]
Hearing-Impaired Juror; Record Reconstruction
State v. Precious M. Ward, 2009AP2085-CR, District 1, 10/5/10 court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Ward: Lew A. Wasserman; BiC; Resp.; Reply Hearing-Impaired Juror Juror who was hearing impaired, but not completely so; who could lip read; and for whom the trial judge took precautions to make sure he could hear […]
OWI – Collateral Attack on Priors
State v. David J. Bucknell, 2010AP833-CR, District 3, 9/30/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bucknell: Rebecca M. Coffee; BiC; Resp.; Reply A prior conviction, used to enhance a pending charge, may be collaterally attacked on the basis of denial of the 6th amendment right to counsel. Because “it is clear from […]
Evidence – Moving Radar
Village of Marathon City v. Jenny L. Nowak, 2010AP462, District 3, 9/30/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); Resp. Br. ¶11 The five-factor Hanson/Kramer test is used to determine the accuracy of moving radar.[4] See Washington Cnty. v. Luedtke, 135 Wis. 2d 131, 133 n.2, 399 N.W.2d 906 (1987). “If there is compliance with the Hanson/Kramer criteria, the [radar device] […]
TPR – Right to Subpoena Parent’s Child
Jeffrey J. v. David D., 2010AP1717, District 3, 9/28/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for David D.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate Parent’s right to confrontation was satisfied by in-chambers discussion between judge and children during which they spoke in favor of termination, where their father killed their mother and grandparents, […]
OWI / Refusal – Informed Consent Law
Door County v. Andrew M. LaFond, 2010AP976, District 3, 9/28/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for LaFond: Robert C. Raymond; BiC; Resp.; Reply The court rejects an argument that a driver has a due process right to be informed that a blood sample can be taken forcibly upon refusal to consent to […]
Plea Bargain – Prosecutorial Compliance
State v. Christopher Jones, 2009AP2761-CR, District 1, 9/28/10 court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Jones: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply The court rejects a claim of an “end-run” around the plea bargain, which limited the State’s recommendation to 10 years imprisonment while leaving the “configuration” of confinement […]
Kentucky v. King, USSC No. 09-1272, cert. grant 9/29/10
Docket Decision below (KY supreme court) Question Presented (from USSC docket post): Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated […]
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 9/10
court of appeals publication orders, 9/29/10 On Point posts from this list: 2010 WI App 124 State v. Donald L. Schultz 2010 WI App 129 State v. Adamm D.J. Linton 2010 WI App 132 State v. Jacquese Franklin Harrell 2010 WI App 133 State v. Christopher D. Jones 2010 WI App 134 State v. Dionicia […]
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, cert grant 9/28/10
Docket Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court) Question Presented: Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements. Cert. Petition State’s Brief Opposing Cert SCOTUSblog […]
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.