On Point

Allen A. Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir 2005)

Issue/Holding: AEDPA requirement of state court adjudication on merits requires neither “well-articulated or even correct decision”; state court need not offer any reasons, so that summary disposition would satisfy requirement. In short: it “is perhaps best understood by stating what it is not: it is not the resolution of a claim on procedural grounds.”

Followed: Joseph M.

State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶46      We agree with Mayo’s position, and the State’s concession at oral argument, that the prosecutor’s remarks on Mayo’s pre-Miranda silence, and the testimony she elicited in that regard, during the State’s opening statement and case-in-chief, violated Mayo’s right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution,

State v. Jeffrey L. Torkelson, 2007 WI App 272, PFR filed 11/30/07
For Torkelson: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Custody, for purposes of Miranda, requires that the suspect’s freedom be restricted to a degree associated with formal arrest, and is as gauged by a multi-factor test articulated in State v. Zan Morgan, 2002 WI App 124, ¶¶13-14. None of those factors are present in this instance,

State v. Heather A. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242, PFR filed 11/29/07
For Markwardt: Richard Hahn

Issue/Holding:

¶35   The circuit court relied on statements Markwardt made one hour and eleven minutes into the interview for its ruling that she had properly asserted her right to remain silent. Her exact words were: “Then put me in jail. Just get me out of here.

State v. Heather A. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242, PFR filed 11/29/07
For Markwardt: Richard Hahn

Issue/Holding: Markwardt’s in-custody statement was voluntary: any stress she was under was “unrelated to police conduct” (¶37); she didn’t unequivocally assert her rights (¶40); that the interrogator “was at times confrontational and raised his voice is not improper police procedure and does not, by itself, establish police coercion” (¶42,

State v. Philip R. Bons, 2007 WI App 124, PFR filed 4/24/07
Issue/Holding:

¶23      Applying the plain language of the rule, Gorokhovsky’s certification of compliance is false. His appendix contains only a copy of the judgment of conviction, the notice of motion and motion to suppress, and the notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief. How these documents in any way inform this court about the trial court’s determinations “essential to an understanding of the issues raised,” we do not know.

State v. Darren A. Kliss, 2007 WI App 13
For Kliss: Michael C. Witt
Issue/Holding: ¶6 n. 4:

We observe that Kliss, in his appellate brief, is inconsistent in his use of pinpoint citations for the case law he invokes to support his legal contentions. Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(e) requires the appellant to support its contentions with citations conforming to the Uniform System of Citation and Supreme Court Rule 80.02.

State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶14      … The State concedes before this court, as it did in the court of appeals, that Johnson did not freely consent to the search of his vehicle. [4] …

 [4]  The dissent faults the State for making this concession.

Dane Co. DHS v. Dyanne M., 2007 WI App 129, PFR filed 4/23
For Dyanne M.: Phillip J. Brehm

Issue/Holding: Reply brief failure to address argument raised in response brief may be deemed conceded for purposes of appeal, ¶23 n. 7, citing Hoffman v. Economy Preferred Ins. Co., 2000 WI App 22, ¶9, 232 Wis. 2d 53,

State v. Dawn R. Dartez, 2007 WI App 126, PFR filed 4/23
For Dartez: Bill Ginsberg
Issue/Holding: Failure of a response brief to dispute a proposition in appellant’s brief may be taken as implicit concession of the proposition, ¶6 n. 3.