On Point

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); Resp Br.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

US Supreme Court decision

Habeas – Discovery
Hall entitled to discovery and evidentiary hearing as to what prompted jury members to give “the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts.”

From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect. The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial,

7th Circuit decision, denying relief in: Wis COA No. 2003AP1885

Habeas – Effective Assistance of Counsel – Lesser Included Instruction
Given state court conclusion that Lopez was not entitled to lesser offense instruction on felony-murder, counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to request the instruction. Nor was the absence of the instruction “a fundamental miscarriage of justice,” because there is no showing “that Lopez probably would have been acquitted of first-degree intentional murder.”

7th Circuit decision; granting habeas relief in: Wis App Nos. 2002AP791 and 2006AP2708 (earlier decision, 1/21/10, now amended); appeal following remand, 11-3228

Habeas – Confrontation
“Because it was error for the state court to admit the co-actors’ statements through the police detective’s testimony at trial, violating Ray’s right of confrontation, we reverse and remand.”

US Supreme Court decision

Habeas – Effective Assistance of Counsel
The state court finding that counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue mitigation of sentence on a theory of mental limitations was “not unreasonable,” and thus not subject to reversal.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 contains two provisions governing federal-court review of state-court factual findings. Under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(2),

State v. Christopher J. Lesik, 2010 WI App 12, PFR filed
For Lesik: Anthony Cotton

Issue/Holding: Sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, § 948.02, isn’t unconstitutionally overbroad, against a theory that it criminalizes acts undertaken for “proper medical purpose.” Although the statute is silent with respect to medical conduct, potential overbreadth may be cured through judicial construction and the court therefore “conclude(s) here that ‘sexual intercourse’ as used in the sexual assault of a child statute does not include ‘bona fide medical,