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.
Expert Opinion Testimony re: Truthfulness of Complainant, as to Signs of Coaching or Suggestion
State v. Bryan James Krueger, 2008 WI App 162
For Krueger: Bradley J. Lochowicz
Issue/Holding:
¶15 Here, Mason was asked whether she had formed an opinion as to whether or not S.B. “was the product of any suggestibility or any coaching.” … Signs of coaching or suggestion could fall into the realm of knowledge that is outside that of a lay-person jury. [10]
¶16 However,
Appellate Procedure: Jurisdiction/Finality of Order – (State’s) Motion to Reconsider Oral Ruling
State v. Elizabeth A. White, 2008 WI App 96
For White: T Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding: Jurisdiction attaches to state’s appeal from denial of reconsideration of an oral ruling dismissing a count, ¶7 n. 5:
The State appeals from the written order denying the motion for reconsideration. White, citing Ver Hagen v. Gibbons, 55 Wis. 2d 21, 25,
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,
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 her charge;
§ 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, lip, limb, or other bodily member;
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 least in terms of getting to that point,
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 under the legislative criteria, but based on the individual circumstances of the case,
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, 163 Wis. 2d at 511.
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,
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.