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
TPR, Sufficiency of Evidence — Jury Verdict That State Failed to Prove Grounds
State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264 Issue Whether the State sufficiently proved grounds to support TPR such that the court should change the jury’s special verdict to the contrary. Holding: “Because the record contains contradictory evidence and a key witness did not testify, and because it is possible the jury did not believe […]
TPR – Appellate Procedure — State’s Appeal, Commenced by GAL
State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264 Issue/Holding:¶1 n. 4: Lamont argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because the guardian ad litem filed the notice of appeal and the State simply joined in the appeal instead of the other way around. We reject Lamont’s contention. WISCONSIN STAT. § 48.235(7) plainly […]
TPR: Right to “Meaningfully Participate” in Hearing
State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue/Holding: ¶2 Birth-parents “have constitutionally protected rights to raise their children as they see fit, and these rights may only be circumscribed if the government proves that there is a ‘powerful countervailing interest.’” Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 228 Wis. 2d 658, 661, 599 N.W.2d 90, 92 […]
TPR: (Imprisoned) Parent’s Telephonic Appearance and Right to “Meaningfully Participate” in Hearing
State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue: Whether the right of a parent imprisoned in the federal system to “meaningfully participate” in a TPR proceeding was violated when he was not physically produced in court but, instead, was limited to telephonic participation. Holding: Where various mechanisms could have been utilized to produce the […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: Necessity of Showing Declarant’s Unavailability
State v. Daniel D. King, 2005WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: The confrontation clause requires that the hearsay declarant be unavailable to testify at trial “and, critically, that the State make a ‘good-faith effort’ to produce the declarant at trial,” ¶6. The trial court erred in determining that the declarant was truly […]
Statements – Suppression: Electronic Recording — Juveniles
State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9 For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶58 … All custodial interrogation of juveniles in future cases shall be electronically recorded where feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention. Audiotaping is sufficient to satisfy our requirement; however, […]
Statements – Voluntariness – Juveniles
State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9 For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Juvenile Jerrell C.J.’s in-custody confession was involuntary under totality of the circumstances – Jerrell’s “personal characteristics” militate against voluntariness: age (14); school records (average to failing grades) and IQ 84 (low to average); prior experience with […]
Postconviction Motions — § 974.06, Supports Interest-of-Justice Review by Supreme Court
State v. Ralph D. Armstrong, 2005 WI 119, reversing unpublished decision For Armstrong: Jerome Buting; Barry Scheck Issue/Holding: Supreme court has both statutory and inherent authority to order new trial in the interest of justice, even on collateral review (as opposed to direct appeal), ¶¶119-24. (State v. Allen, 159 Wis. 2d 53, 464 N.W.2d 426 […]
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 […]
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.