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.
Peter H. v. Keri H., 2009AP2487, District III, 4/23/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keri H.: Leonard D. Kachinski
IAC Claim – TPR
“The decision not to emphasize events preceding the current termination petitions was a reasonable strategic choice and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶11. Separately: counsel did not perform deficiently in his efforts to obtain Keri H.’s client file from predecessor counsel, and then securing an adjournment to prepare for trial,
State v. David R. Knapp, 2009AP1463-CR, District IV, 4/22/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Knapp: David M. Helmke; BiC; Resp.
Harmless Error – Prior Conviction
Inadmissible testimony suggestive of a prior conviction (Knapp’s statement upon arrest “that he was going to jail again”) was non-prejudicial: Knapp himself testified he had a prior conviction and nothing in the inadmissible testimony indicated the nature of the prior.
State v. Alan D. Pintar, 2009AP2096-CR, District IV, 4/22/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Pintar: Sarvan Singh; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Probable Cause – Traffic Violation
The police had probable cause to believe Pintar violated § 343.13(1), given uncontroverted testimony that his vehicle “moved across the center skip line (of I-94) into the lane of a car that was approaching from the rear, causing the car to activate its break lights and move out of the way.”
Tammy W-G v. Jacob T., 2009AP2973, District IV, 4/22/10
court of appeals certification; for Jacob T.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
TPR – Grounds
We certify this case because we believe that State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, prevents us from interpreting Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) in a manner that is consistent both with the language of the statute and constitutional protections accorded parental rights.
State v. Lathadis L. Luckett, 2009AP2679-CR, Distict II, 4/21/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Luckett: Cheryl A. Ward; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Extended Supervision Conditions
ES condition barring Luckett from residing”with any person in any place in which children or women reside [without] Court’s permission” neither unreasonable nor unconstitutionally overbroad.
The court of appeals stresses that Luckett’s history “demonstrates domestic violence”; indeed, the immediate crime is itself DV-related.
State v. Quovadis Conyice Evans, 2009AP889-CR, District I, 4/20/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Evans: George Tauscheck; BiC: Resp.; Reply
Testimony from 4 (of a total of 9) false imprisonment victims wasn’t necessary to sustain the convictions on those counts:
… (A) reasonable jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt from circumstantial evidence that Nathan B., Nicholas B., Nigel B. and Rashod H. did not consent to being restrained by Evans.
OLR v. Douglas Katerinos, No. 2008AP1627-D
Wisconsin supreme court decision
Public reprimand for: “over-litigating” small claims case; taking position adverse to clients’ interest; pursuing frivolous argument; “making a baseless statement” about opposing counsel/party.
Seven-plus years ago, counsel assumed representation of two debtors trying to get out of a $491.36 bill for medical services. The dust from the ensuing litigation volcano settles today around an obligation that totals north of $20,000 — almost (but not all) from counsel’s pocket.
United States v. Stevens, USSC No. 08-769, 4/20/10
United States Supreme Court decision (or, here)
Criminalizing depictions of animal cruelty, 18 U.S.C. §48, held “substantially overbroad,” therefore violative of First Amendment.
First Amendment restrictions on speech are permitted “in a few limited areas” (obscenity, crime facilitation, et al.), and despite long-standing abhorrence of animal cruelty, depictions of same will not be added to that list.
… The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits.
State v. Scott W. Able, 2009AP2777-CR, District II, 4/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Able: Francesco G. Mineo; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reasonable Suspicion, Stop
Police had reasonable suspicion for temporary detention: after business hours, car pulled into parking lot of fitness club that had been subject of recent burglaries.
Conclusion unremarkable save perhaps court’s inexplicable emphasis that event occurred “close to bar closing time,” ¶12.
State v. Victor T. Jackson, 2009AP851-CR, District I, 4/6/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Hearsay, Child Sexual Assault, Residual Exception
Statements by youthful sex assault complainants admissible under residual hearsay exception, court rejecting idea that it’s thereby allowing exception to swallow general rule against hearsay admissibility; confrontation objection forfeited).
Counsel – Strategic Basis for Failing to Adduce Alibi Witness
Counsel’s failure to have potential alibi witnesses testify was reasonable strategy,
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.