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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Non-Constitutional Right: Patient Records (HIPAA, § 146.82)
State v. Ellen T. Straehler, 2008 WI App 14 For Straehler: Daniel P. Fay Issue: Whether suppression is a remedy for violation of health care privacy laws (HIPAA; § 146.82). Holding1: ¶10 Straehler’s argument does not carry for a number of reasons. First, Straehler ignores the fact that HIPAA is limited in its scope and applicability. […]
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right: § 968.135, Subpoena Procedure for Production of Documents – Suppressibility of Documents Themselves
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16 For Popenhagen: James B. Connell Issue: Whether documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible. Holding: ¶30 The State concedes, and properly so, that contrary to the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 no showing of probable cause was made to the […]
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right: § 968.135, Subpoena Procedure for Production of Documents – Suppressibility of Statements Made When Confronted with Improperly Subpoenaed Documents
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16 For Popenhagen: James B. Connell Issue: Whether statements made when confronted with documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible. Holding: ¶81 The defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements in the present case is substantially similar in nature to a motion […]
Judge – Bias – Ex Parte Contact with Prosecutor
State ex rel. Adrian T. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, affirmed, 2008 WI 67, ¶48 n. 7 (reconsideration denied, 2008 WI 118) Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4: We are disturbed by Reddin’s presumption to give, and Judge Murray’s acquiescence to receive, Reddin’s ex parte advice about the scope of Hipp’s ability to have issued subpoenas for the […]
Plea-Withdrawal, Pre-Sentencing – “Fair and Just” Reason: Coercion by Counsel
State v. Eugene D. Rhodes, 2008 WI App 32, PFR filed 1/15/08 For Rhodes: Joseph E. Redding Issue/Holding: Counsel’s “forceful” advice that defendant enter a guilty plea wasn’t in and of itself a “fair and just” reason sufficient to require pre-sentencing grant of a motion to withdraw the plea: ¶11 Rhodes proffers his attorney’s “forceful […]
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentence: Prima Facie Showing, Plea Questionnaire
State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2008 WI App 89 For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a plea colloquy that merely established that the defendant was “satisfied” he understood “everything in the questionnaire and waiver of rights and the elements of the charges” sufficed under State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 […]
Obstructing or Resisting Warden, § 29.951 – Single Crime with Multiple Modes of Commission – Unanimity not Required
State v. David A. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131, affirmed, 2010 WI 84, ¶2 n. 3 For Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Unanimity is not required on whether the defendant “resisted” or “obstructed” a warden on a charge of violating § 29.951, ¶¶21-42. All the rest is commentary. (Translated: the court undertakes a […]
Securities Fraud, § 551.41(2) – Elements – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116 For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: ¶29 The State was required to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict LaCount of securities fraud. First, the prosecution had to establish that LaCount sold Wills a security, here, an investment contract. Wis. Stat. § […]
§ 901.03, Plain Error – Generally
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 […]
Plain Error, § 901.03(4) – Prosecutor’s Closing Argument as Violating Confrontation
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 […]
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.