On Point

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.

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 page

Follow-up to Melendez-Diaz v.

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Napue Issue

The Supreme Court has held that “a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959) …. Thus, a new trial is required if a petitioner establishes that (1) the prosecution presented false testimony or failed to disclose that false testimony was used to convict,

Posting will be light to non-existent, 9/27 – 10/5.

Expect, during this time frame, Wisconsin court of appeals decisions and September publication orders, and the first USSC cert grants of OT ’10 (which might include an important good-faith issue; see this Orin Kerr post).

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Prison Mail – Access to Courts

As a matter of the due process right to a fair hearing in a civil matter, which includes the right to aid of counsel, a prison inmate is entitled to receive confidential communications from his lawyer. However, the prison is entitled, as a matter of security, to assure itself that such purported communications are indeed from a lawyer authorized to practice in the relevant jurisdiction.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Grenie: John C. Orth; Steven J. House; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Blue Lights

Traffic stop for having blue lights lit on front of vehicle, upheld. (§ 347.07(2)(a) bars display of “(a)ny color of light other than white or amber visible from directly in front.”)

¶6        Grenie essentially asks this court to credit testimony by his two witnesses suggesting that the blue lights were “never” operational over the officer’s testimony that he saw the lights lit when Grenie’s Jeep passed him.

Dane Co. DHS v. Tierra M., 2010AP1648, District 4, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tierra M.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

The court rejects the idea that Tierra M.’s termination of parental rights wasn’t “fully tried” under the theory that the subsequently decided Sheboygan County Department of Health & Human Services v. Tanya M.B., 2010 WI 55 requires departmental services relevant to implied as well as explicitly ordered conditions for the children’s return.

Milwaukee County v. Earl Z., 2010AP704, District 1, 9/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Earl Z.: Jeremy Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

County appeal of dismissal of emergency detention at probable cause stage is moot, where facts supporting that requested detention are no longer operative. Exceptions to mootness — appellate court may reach merits if the issue is sufficiently important or likely repetitious but evasive of review —

State v. Seneca Joseph Boykin, 2009AP2499-CR, District 2, 9/22/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Boykin: Mark A. Schoenfeldt; BiC; Resp.

A probation agent may not evade the warrant requirement by acting as a “stalking horse” for the police in conducting a warrantless search of a probationer’s residence, ¶10. In this instance, probation officer Navis, acting on reliable information that Boykin was using and selling cocaine,

State v. James Stoner, III, 2009AP2963, District 2, 9/22/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stoner: Joshua Davis Uller; BiC; Resp.; Reply

“Reopen-and-amend” plea bargains, “referring to those plea bargains where the State and defendant agree that a judgment of conviction, once announced, will be amended by the State upon the happening of some future event.