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
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor, Recommending Lengthy Terms of Supervision – Non-Material Where Confinement Defendant’s Main Concern
State v. David C. Quarzenski, 2007 WI APP 212, PFR filed 9/21/07 For Quarzenski: Martin E. Kohler, Christopher M. Eippert Issue: Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s sentencing recommendation where: under the plea bargain the State agreed to and in fact “capped” its recommendation on several counts to a total […]
Bailiff as Potential Witness
State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decisionFor Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski Issue/Holding Belated discovery of the bailiff’s involvement in the charged offense as a possible witness did not, under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 […]
Witness – Impeachment – Gang Affiliation of Witnesses – Irrelevant in Absence of Evidence Defendant Was Gang Member
State v. Thomas C. Burton, 2007 WI App 237 For Burton: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: Testimony by a “gang expert” as to the gang-affiliation of certain witnesses, in an effort to explain their motive to testify as they did, was irrelevant in the absence of any evidence that the defendant was himself a gang member: ¶14 […]
Evidence – Sufficiency of Objection, Admissibility – Specificity of Ground Required
State v. Samuel Nelis, 2007 WI 58, affirming unpublished decision For Nelis: Robert A. Ferg Issue: Whether a trial-level objection that a dismissed witness was unavailable for cross-examination on a prior statement was specific enough to preserve an appellate argument that the witness wasn’t given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement. Holding: ¶31 […]
Impeachment with Post-Miranda Silence – Generally: Due Process Analysis
State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶14 Although Cockrell describes his challenge to the prosecutor’s use of his post- Miranda silence as a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, the substance of his argument is the due process analysis employed […]
Self-Incrimination – Impeachment with Post-Miranda Silence – Generally: Partial Exercise of Rights
State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶16 Building on footnote 11 in Doyle, courts have recognized situations in which it is not a violation of due process for the prosecutor to elicit on cross-examination the fact of the defendant’s post- Miranda silence for […]
Self-Incrimination – Impeachment with Post-Miranda Silence – Distinction re: Substantive Use
State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶31 … (A)s long as the prosecutor does not ask the jury to make a direct inference of guilt from the defendant’s post-arrest silence, asking the jury to draw inferences that impeach the defendant’s volunteered testimony on […]
Expert Witness – Conclusion as to Ultimate Fact
State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2007 WI App 116, affirmed, 2008 WI 59, ¶20 For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: ¶19 Under Wis. Stat. § 907.04, “[t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” See, e.g., […]
Finality of Order – Trial Court’s Inherent Authority to Reconsider Non-Final Order
State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07 For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Trial courts possess inherent authority to reconsider any non-final ruling prior to entry of final order or judgment, ¶13, citing State v. Bobby R. Williams, 2005 WI App 221, ¶17, 287 Wis. 2d 748, […]
“Alford” Plea – Challenge to Trial Court’s Refusal to Accept
State v. William F. Williams, 2000 WI App 123, 237 Wis.2d 591, 614 N.W.2d 11 For Williams: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court’s express policy of never accepting an “Alford” plea worked an erroneous refusal to accept such a plea. Holding: ¶8 Even if we were to determine that the […]
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.