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.
Confrontation – Prosecutor’s Closing Argument
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶39 Jorgensen’s right to confrontation was also violated during the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor took what the jury had improperly heard during the trial a step further. She “testified” that Jorgensen was a “chronic […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Proof of (Other Offenses)
State v. David G. Straszkowski, 2008 WI 65, affirming summary order For Straszkowski Philip J. Brehm Issue/Holding: The sentencing court may consider uncharged and unproven offenses, ¶36; id n. 20: State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, ¶45, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341. See also State v. McQuay , 154 Wis. 2d 116, 126, 452 N.W.2d 377 (1990) (“Evidence of unproven offenses involving the defendant […]
Guilty Pleas – “Remote” Appearance – Defendant’s Inability to Confer with Counsel during Colloquy
Wright v. Joseph L. Van Patten,552 US 120 (2008) Prior history: Joseph Van Patten v. Deppisch, 434 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2006), reinstated, 489 F. 3d 827, 2007, on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. ___ (2006); on habeas review of, unpublished opinion of […]
Audiovisual Recording, § 908.08(1) – Transcription by Court Reporter Required
State v. Pablo Ruiz-Velez, 2008 WI App 169 For Ruiz-Velez: Melnda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether audiovisual recordings of statements made by alleged victims and admitted into evidence under § 908.08(1) must be transcribed by the official court reporter. Holding: ¶4 Wisconsin Stat. Rule 885.42(4) provides: “At trial, videotape depositions and other testimony presented […]
TPR – Elements, Continuing Need of Protection and Services; Stipulation to Element; Withdrawal of Jury Demand
Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification TPR – Elements, Ground of Continuing Need of Protection and Services, Generally Issue/Holding: ¶6 There are four elements to this ground for termination. First, the child must have been placed out of the home for a cumulative total of more than six months pursuant to […]
“Meaningful participation” in TPR by webcam
Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published) Issue/Holding: A deported father’s participation in the TPR proceeding by a webcam system was “meaningful,” given that he could see and hear witnesses, be seen by the court, and communicate privately with counsel and with aid of an interpreter, ¶¶10-19. State v. […]
TPR–stipulation to element and effect on jury demand
Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification Issue/Holding: Stipulation to a TPR elements did not constitute withdrawal of the demand for a jury trial, where the element was submitted to, and found by, the jury under the instructions and special verdict form, ¶¶18-24. The court approvingly analogizes to State v. Charles […]
TPR-elements, grounds of continuing need or protection and services
Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification Issue/Holding: ¶6 There are four elements to this ground for termination. First, the child must have been placed out of the home for a cumulative total of more than six months pursuant to court orders containing the termination of parental rights notice. Second, the […]
TPR – Withdrawal of Element (Parental Unfitness) from Jury Consideration Amounted to Denial of Jury Trial
Manitowoc County HSD v. Allen J., 2008 WI App 137 Issue/Holding: ¶1 Allen J. appeals from orders terminating his parental rights to his children, Brandon [1] and Stephanie J. He argues that he was deprived of his right to a jury trial because the court, rather than the jury, answered one of the verdict questions […]
TPR – No Contest Plea, Withdrawal of – Prima Facie Showing re: Grounds and Potential Disposition
Oneida Co. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 WI App 159 Grounds Issue/Holding: Informing the parent of potential “dispositions in a general sense” is not enough to satisfy § 48.422(7)(a): ¶16 Thus, at the very least, a court must inform the parent that at the second step of the process, the court will hear evidence related to […]
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.