On Point

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 father yet weren’t attempted, and the telephone hook-up was, under the circumstances,

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 unavailable:

¶16 First, the State conceded that its process-server had Shelia J.’s wrong address for seven of the attempts at service.

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, videotaping may provide an even more complete picture of what transpired during the interrogation. 

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 law enforcement (limited, but including arrests for minor offenses that,

State v. Ralph D. Armstrong, 2005 WI 119, reversing unpublished decision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 (Ct. App. 1990) (court of appeals has no authority under § 752.35 to engage in no authority to undertake interest-of-justice review on collateral attack) severely questioned if not explicitly overruled.

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 agency and that contains biological material or on which there is biological material,

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 our line of cases that recognize that a criminal complaint which fails to allege any offense known at law is jurisdictionally defective and void.

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, not its judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was such that it might reasonably make the order or determination in question.” 

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.

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 back;