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
Newly Discovered Evidence – Renewed Effort, Based on Changes in Medical Opinion, Not Barred
State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002) For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: Presentation of expert testimony to establish, under a theory of newly discovered evidence, a recent […]
Newly Discovered Evidence – Change in Medical Opinion with Respect to Shaken Baby Syndrome – Probability of Different Result
State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002) For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: Edmunds was convicted over a decade ago of causing the death of a baby in […]
§ 940.21, Mayhem – Elements – Generally – Includes “Forehead”
State v. Leonard J. Quintana, 2008 WI 33, affirming 2007 WI App 29 For Quintana: James B. Connell, Robyn J. DeVos, William R. Kerner Issue/Holding: ¶70 To constitute mayhem, the State must show that the defendant had (1) the specific intent to disable or disfigure; (2) by cutting or mutilating the tongue, eye, ear, nose, […]
Defenses – Statute of Limitations, § 939.74 – Version Applicable to Since-Repealed, Ch. 944 Offense
State v. Bruce Duncan MacArthur, 2008 WI 72, on Certification For MacArthur: Alex Flynn Amicus: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: Alleged violations, between 1965 and 1972, of since-repealed ch. 944 sexual assault statutes come within the statute of limitations provision extant during that time frame. There is, of course, a whole lot more to it than that, at […]
Counsel – Right to – Inherent Judicial Authority – Defendant’s Burden of Proof
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186 Pro se Issue/Holding: Defendant did not satisfy his burden of proving indigency, for purposes of invoking inherent judicial authority to appoint counsel, where he failed to submit information regarding attempts to retain counsel as well as information relative to rental property, ¶18.
Counsel – Right to – Defendant Must Cooperate With SPD 1st
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186 Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶27 We emphasize that the procedures set forth in Dean by this court suggest that the inherent power of the circuit court shall be exercised to cover situations where a defendant cooperated with the SPD’s financial analysis, was found not to be indigent […]
Counsel – Right to – Review of SPD Denial of Representation, § 977.06(4)
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186 Pro se Issue/Holding1: ¶11 Kennedy argues that the trial court failed to properly review the SPD’s determination that he did not qualify for the appointment of counsel. In reviewing this issue, the trial court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See id, […]
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11 Generally Follows Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Issue/Holding: ¶20 Historically, we have interpreted Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution in accord with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶15, 274 Wis. 2d 540, 683 […]
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11 Generally Follows Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62 For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen Issue/Holding: ¶18 Historically, we generally have interpreted Article I, Section 11 to provide the same constitutional guarantees as the Supreme Court has accorded through its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Arias, 311 Wis. 2d […]
SVP Commitments – Competency to Stand Trial – No Due Process Right to Evaluation
State v. Ronald D. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93 For Luttrell: Steven Prifogle, SPD, Milwaukee Trial Issue: Whether a ch. 980 SVP respondent is entitled to § 971.14 competency evaluation. Holding: ¶8 It is true, of course, that both Wis. Stat. § 971.13 and Wis. Stat. § 971.14 once applied to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments, see Smith, 229 Wis. 2d at […]
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.