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.
Jury – Bailiff as Potential Witness
State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision
For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski
Issue/Holding: Belated discovery of the bailiff’s involvement in the charged offense as a possible witness did not, under the circumstances, cause sufficient prejudice to require mistrial:
¶57 In the present case, Wolfgram was unaware of his involvement in the case until the morning of trial.
Reconfinement – Lack of Authority to Consider CIP or ERP Eligibility
State v. Antonio M. Hall, 2007 WI App 168
For Hall: Michael D. Kaiser
Issue/Holding:
¶17 From our examination of these statutory provisions, we find no ambiguity in the relevant language and conclude that the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01(3g), 973.01(3m) and 302.113(9)(am) express a clear intent to restrict the sentencing discretion of the reconfinement court at a reconfinement hearing;
Binding Authority – Stare Decisis
State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, affirming 2006 WI App 188
For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶20 A prior interpretation of a statute is applied when courts subsequently consider the same statute. Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67, ¶41, 281 Wis. 2d 300, 697 N.W.2d 417. The court may overturn a prior interpretation of a statute when it has been shown “not only that [the previous decision] was mistaken but also that it was objectively wrong,
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Analysis: Structural Error, Generally
State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision
For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski
Issue/Holding
¶42 … (S)tructural error [is] a “defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991); State v. Shirley E.
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Analysis, Generally
State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶47 In determining whether a constitutional error is harmless, the inquiry is as follows: “‘Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?’” State v. Harvey,
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Comments on pre-Miranda Silence
State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School
Issue/Holding: Erroneous comments on pre-Miranda silence were harmless, given both infrequency of occurrence and also absence of impact on the defendant’s decision to testify (which then properly exposed him to such comment), ¶¶49-52.
Sentencing Review, Generally, Preserved by Postconviction Motion
State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, affirming 2006 WI App 188
For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: ¶14 n. 4:
The State contends that Grady waived the issues presented. Grady did not waive the issues presented because he filed a postconviction motion pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.30(2)(h). Filing a postconviction motion is a timely means of raising an alleged error by the circuit court during sentencing.
Tuberculosis Treatment Commitment, § 252.07 – Generally
City of Milwaukee v. Ruby Washington, 2007 WI 104, affirming 2006 WI App 99
For Washington: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Karl Otto Rohlich, SPD, Milwaukee Mental Health
Amicus: Colleen Ball, ACLU
Issue/Holding:
¶3 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9)(a) authorizes confinement to a jail for a person with noninfectious tuberculosis who is at a high risk of developing infectious tuberculosis and fails to comply with a prescribed treatment regimen,
Tuberculosis Treatment Commitment, § 252.07 – Confinement: Jail as Placement Option
City of Milwaukee v. Ruby Washington, 2007 WI 104, affirming 2006 WI App 99
For Washington: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Karl Otto Rohlich, SPD, Milwaukee Mental Health
Amicus: Colleen Ball, ACLU
Issue/Holding:
¶37 … We conclude that, together, the commonly accepted meanings of “facility” and “confined” indicate that the legislature intended jail to be a permissible placement option under Wis.
Tuberculosis Treatment Commitment, § 252.07 – Confinement: Least Restrictive Alternative
City of Milwaukee v. Ruby Washington, 2007 WI 104, affirming 2006 WI App 99
For Washington: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Karl Otto Rohlich, SPD, Milwaukee Mental Health
Amicus: Colleen Ball, ACLU
Issue/Holding:
¶42 Washington next argues that if jail is a permissible place of confinement under Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9), confinement to jail is not permitted whenever some less restrictive placement is available,
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.