On Point

See summary of State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, here.

Omitted Issues – Stalking: Submission to Jury of Prior Conviction for “Violence” Despite Stipulation

State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42

For Warbelton: Paul G. Lazotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: On a trial for stalking,

Johnbull K. Osagiede v. USA, 7th Cir No. 07-1131, 9/9/08

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s ignorance of VCCR Art. 36 rights available to foreign national client was deficient:

Osagiede’s claim is a common one in Sixth Amendment cases. In essence, Osagiede argues that his lawyer should have been aware of his legal rights under Article 36 and should have acted to protect them: “All lawyers that represent criminal defendants are expected to know the laws applicable to their client’s defense.” Julian v.

State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208

For Doss: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Closing argument remarks addressed to Doss’s failure to explain missing funds did not amount to a comment on her failure to testify:

¶81      …

[F]or a prosecutor’s comment to constitute an improper reference to a defendant’s failure to testify,

State v. Scott M. Hambly, 2008 WI 10, affirming 2006 WI App 256
For Hambly: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, following his in-custody invocation of right to counsel, Hambly’s subsequent statements that he didn’t know what was going on (eliciting the officer’s response that he’d sold cocaine to an informant) and wanted to talk to find out what his options were amounted to a initiation of contact authorizing interrogation within the Edwards rule.

State v. Willie B. Cole, 2008 WI App 178
For Cole: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue/Holding:

¶25      …  If a suspect requests counsel at any time during the interview, he or she is not subject to further questioning until a lawyer has been made available or the suspect himself or herself reinitiates conversation. …

¶26      The Fifth Amendment/ Miranda right to counsel during custodial interrogations is not offense specific. 

State v. Scott M. Hambly, 2008 WI 10, affirming 2006 WI App 256

For Hambly: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶93      The defendant summarizes his argument that he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to counsel, stating that at the time of his arrest, he was hungry, alone in the back seat of a squad car,

State v. Scott M. Hambly, 2008 WI 10, affirming 2006 WI App 256
For Hambly: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶77      Whether a suspect “initiates” communication or dialogue does not depend solely on the time elapsing between the invocation of the right to counsel and the suspect’s beginning an exchange with law enforcement, although the lapse of time is a factor to consider.…

¶82      … [T]he defendant’s statement here that he did not understand why he was under arrest was clearly seeking information and constituted an initiation of communication with Rindt in the most ordinary sense of the word.

State v. Scott M. Hambly, 2008 WI 10, affirming 2006 WI App 256
For Hambly: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a suspect’s in-custody invocation of right to counsel before administration of Miranda warnings triggers the Edwards bar on interrogation absent the suspect’s reinitiating communication with the police.

Holding:

¶23      The State argues that in the present case when the defendant asked for an attorney he was not subject to custodial interrogation.

State v. Jordan A. Denk, 2008 WI 130, on certification
For Denk: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶29      When we accept certification from the court of appeals, we acquire jurisdiction of the entire appeal. We thus consider all issues raised before the court of appeals. See Wis. Stat. §§ 808.05(2) and (Rule) 809.61; State v.

State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) (2003-04) recognizes the plain error doctrine. [3] The plain error doctrine allows appellate courts to review errors that were otherwise waived by a party’s failure to object.  State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78,