On Point

S.C. Johnson v. Milton E. Morris, 2010 WI App 6, PFR filed 12/30/09

Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 1:

Justice Robert Hansen once wrote the now familiar phrase that “[a]n appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an appeal.” State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555,

USSC decision

In a pathmarking decision, Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436, 471 (1966) , the Court held that an individual must be “clearly informed,” prior to custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, “the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation.” The question presented in this case is whether advice that a suspect has “the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of [the law enforcement officers’] questions,” and that he can invoke this right “at any time … during th[e] interview,” satisfies Miranda .

Michelle Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14

Issue/Holding:

¶13      The circuit court reversed the Housing Authority’s denial of rent assistance because it concluded that, under Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board, 2005 WI 16, 278 Wis. 2d 111, 692 N.W.2d 572, the Housing Authority could not base its decision solely on uncorroborated hearsay evidence (the officer’s written notes recalling the witness’s statement of what Williams said),

Thaler v. Haynes, USSC No. 09–273, 2/22/10 (per curiam)

Nothing in Supreme Court caselaw clearly requires “that a demeanor-based explanation for a peremptory challenge must be rejected unless the judge personally observed and recalls the relevant aspect of the prospective juror’s demeanor.” In other words, there’s no requirement that the judge have been present during jury selection in order to evaluate a Batson claim defended by the prosecutor as based on the juror’s demeanor.

State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Frisk analysis applies to police demand that suspect drop object in hand, ¶22.

¶23      Here, Carroll led officers on a high-speed chase in a car that the officers had been observing in connection with an armed robbery investigation, and exited his car quickly while holding an unknown object. 

State v. Sameeh J. Pickens, 2010 WI App 5, reconsideration denied 1/20
For Pickens: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A temporary detention is narrowly circumscribed, in terms of duration and intensity, by the least intrusive means necessary to dispel suspicion¸¶27. Thus, in the absence of any reason to believe weapons were present, use of handcuffs on Griffin was unjustified, ¶30.

¶33   In sum,

supreme court “decision” (court splits 3-3); for Allen: Robert R. Henak

Recusal – Individual Supreme Court Justice – Reviewability
The question of whether a claim of bias against one Justice (Gableman) is reviewable by the full court fails to yield a majority. The court splits 3-3 (Justice Gableman not participating), in a total of 5 separate opinions (3 would assume jurisdiction to review claim and would order full briefing on merits of claim;

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); Resp Br. (Baake); Reply (State)

Traffic Stop – Failure to Yield to Stopped Police Vehicle
Stop for failure to yield unsupported: “§ 346.072, by its plain language, only requires a motorist to change lanes if there are two or more lanes in the motorist’s direction of travel and it is safe to do so,” ¶11; no “testimony that Baake failed to slow down or that he was traveling at an unsafe speed,

court of appeals decision

Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review – Evidence Admissibility

¶14     However, not all evidentiary rulings are discretionary. For example, if an evidentiary issue requires construction or application of a statute to a set of facts, a question of law is presented and our review is de novo. State v. Jensen, 2007 WI App 256, ¶9, 306 Wis. 2d 572, 743 N.W.2d 468.

US Supreme Court decision

Habeas – Sufficiency of Evidence Review
Evidence submitted well after trial may not be considered in determining sufficiency of the state’s proof under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979) …

… An “appellate court’s reversal for insufficiency of the evidence is in effect a determination that the government’s case against the defendant was so lacking that the trial court should have entered a judgment of acquittal.” Lockhart v.