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
Discovery – DNA Testing, at Defendant’s Own Expense, § 974.07(6)
State v. James M. Moran, 2005 WI 115, reversing unpublished decision For Moran: Colleen D. Ball, State Bar Pro Bono Project Issue/Holding: ¶3 We conclude that the plain language of § 974.07(6) gives a movant the right to conduct DNA testing of physical evidence that is in the actual or constructive possession of a government […]
Waiver of Argument: Constitutionality of Statute – Facial Challenge
State v. Thomas H. Bush (III), 2005 WI 103, reversing in part and affirming on the merits, 2004 WI App 193 For Bush: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: Although an “as applied” challenge to a statute may be waived, a facial challenge, in contradistinction, is not waivable, ¶17: ¶18 This rule is also entirely consistent with […]
Standards of Review: Administrative Decision – Certiorari, de novo in part
State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella Issue/Holding: ¶13. Certiorari review for parole revocation is limited to four questions: “(1) whether the agency stayed within its jurisdiction; (2) whether it acted according to law; (3) whether its action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable, representing its will, […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Test, Generally
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73< For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue/Holding: ¶40 The test for this harmless error was set forth by the Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987 […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Test – Confrontation
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue/Holding: Confrontation error deemed harmful, where the following evinced the tainted evidence’s impact: prosecutor’s litigation strategy, ¶51; jury’s reaction (which included repeated requests to have tainted testimony read […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Analysis – TPR – Exclusion of Expert Opinion Testimony
Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion For Shannon R.: Brian C. Findley, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of whether the TPR respondent is likely to be able to meet the conditions for return of her children. Holding: […]
Sentence Modification: New Factor — TIS-II, Reduced Penalty In Relation to TIS-I (Unclassified Felony) Sentence, Not New Factor
State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶2 We conclude, based on our holding in State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, that the reduced maximum confinement penalties under TIS-II do not constitute new […]
Sentence Modification: New Factor, Generally
State v. Jose A. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals For Trujillo: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13 We define a new factor as “an event or development which frustrates the purpose of the original sentence,” Champion, 258 Wis. 2d 781, ¶4, and recognize it to be more than a change […]
SVP – Supervised Release Determination, Standard of Review on Appeal
State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555 For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8. The issue presented by the parties in the instant case is whether a circuit court’s denial of a chapter 980 petition for supervised release should be classified […]
Mootness: Revocation, Discharge from Custody
State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella Issue/Holding: ¶11. Since granting the petition for review in this case, we have determined that the issue presented is moot as to Riesch. “An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying […]
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.