On Point

Hakim Naseer v. Circuit Court for Grant County, 2010 WI App 142; pro se

Mandamus – Generally

¶4        A supervisory writ of mandamus is a mechanism by which a court may compel a public official to perform a legally obligated act. State ex rel. Robins v. Madden, 2009 WI 46, ¶10, 317 Wis. 2d 364, 766 N.W.2d 542. Because a supervisory writ “invokes our supervisory authority,

City of Mequon v. James E. Haynor, 2010AP466-FT, District 2, 9/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Haynor: Peter L. Ramirez; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Expert Witness Qualifications – Lab Chemist: Physiological Effects of Drugs

The trial court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in qualifying as an expert, the supervisor of forensic toxicology at the Wisconsin  State Laboratory of Hygiene on the matter of how certain drugs interact and impair judgment,

County of Washington v. Michael D. Brazee, 2010AP687, District 2, 9/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brazee: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable cause to arrest found notwithstanding absence of PBT, given erratic driving, admission of drinking 8-10 beers, and failed field sobriety test performance:

¶17    Brazee seems to be asserting that under Renz I and Renz II,

7th circuit decision

Habeas – Limits on Cros-Examination

State court limitation on impeachment of a witness — so as to exclude that portion of a pre-trial conversation containing the defendant’s “self-serving,” thus inadmissible hearsay, statement — wasn’t an unreasonable application of controlling caselaw.

Determination of whether “state interests, including those reflected in the state’s evidentiary rules, may need to bend in order to ensure that defendants have the right to confront the witnesses against them …

7th Circuit decision; on habeas review of Wis. opinion No. 2005AP2599-CR

Habeas – Filing Deadline – Tolling

The District Court had authority to grant Socha’s pre-filing, pre-deadline request to extend the 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) deadline for his habeas petition, made on the ground of equitable tolling.

… First, there is no absolute bar imposed by Article III on judicial actions closely connected with a case or controversy that has not yet been filed.

State v. Christopher Melendrez, 2009AP2070, District 4, 9/2/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Melendrez: David R. Karpe; BiC; Resp.; Reply

SVP – Retroactivity of Qualifying Offense Legislation

Third-degree sexual assault wasn’t an SVP-qualifying offense when Melendrez plea-bargained a reduction of 2nd-degree sexual assault to 3rd. But by the time he was released from prison,

State v. Jennette L. Ellifritz, 2010AP713-CR, District 2, 9/1/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ellifritz: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Obstructing – Unanimity – Course of Conduct

Because Ellifritz’s actions occurred during a single course of action, over a short (40-second) period of time, instructional failure to require agreement as to which separate act constituted obstructing didn’t violate her right to unanimous verdict;

State v. Charles G. Jury, 2010AP622-CR, District 2, 9/1/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jury: Eric R. Pangburn; BiC; Resp.

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of vehicle for any or all of the following reasons: dim tail light; necklace hanging from rearview mirror so as to obstruct driver’s view; driving on double yellow line.

City of Oshkosh v. Richard A. Selquist, 2010AP862, District 2, 9/1/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Selquist: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The police had reasonable suspicion to continue temporary detention of Selquist and to request filed sobriety testing while investigating a traffic accident:

¶7        …  In reviewing whether the officer’s further investigation and request for field sobriety tests were warranted,

State v. Adamm D.J. Linton, 2010 WI App 129; for Linton: Joseph E. Redding; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Interrogation – Ambiguous Request for Counsel

Initial custodial questioning terminated when Linton invoked his right to silence. During subsequent re-interrogation, Linton said, “when I asked for a lawyer earlier, why wasn’t he appointed to me?” The detective indicated that if Linton was asking for a lawyer then the police would “just stop talking to”