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
Confrontation – Hearsay: “Testimonial” Statements – Police Interview of Victim at Hospital – Line-Up Identification
State v. Daniel D. King, 2005 WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: An interview by a detective of the victim at a hospital shortly after the charged assault, admitted into evidence as an excited utterance, is deemed “testimonial” (and, therefore, inadmissible under the confrontation clause) because it involved “response(s) to ‘structured police […]
Confrontation – Admissible Hearsay (Statement of Recent Perception) – Roberts Analysis Surviving Crawford
State v. Antwan B. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, affirming 2004 WI App 111 For Manuel: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1 [general principles]: The two-part analysis of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) survives Crawford for use in determining Confrontation Clause admissibility of nontestimonial statements, ¶¶54-61 (unavailable declarant, and adequate indicia of reliability). […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: Former Testimony, § 908.045(1) — Codefendant’s Separate Trial
State v. Glenn H. Hale, 2005 WI 7, affirming, as modified, 2003 WI App 238 For Hale: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Under Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), prior testimony at a codefendant’s separate trial is inadmissible at Hale’s trial, given that the previously testifying witness cannot be located. ¶¶53-58. […]
Wisconsin Constitution – “New Federalism,” Generally
In a series of recent cases, the supreme court has joined what it terms “the ‘new federalism’ movement,” State v. Knapp (II), 2005 WI 127, ¶84 and id., n. 20 (Crooks, J., conc. w/ majority support of 4 votes), which refers to a tendency to look first to the state constitution and assign greater rights […]
Wisconsin Constitution – Supreme Court Superintending Authority
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: (Concurrence of Chief Justice, but one that marshals majority of votes, hence represents holding:) ¶66 The powers of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are defined in several ways and have diverse origins. Some are […]
Defenses – Venue – First-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficient Bindover Showing of Killing in County Where Prosecution Lodged
State v. Derek Anderson, 2005 WI 54, on certification For Anderson: Neil C. McGinn, SPD, Milwaukee Trial; Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Venue, § 971.19(1), requires trial in the county where the crime was committed; bindover proof of venue in a first-degree intentional homicide was sufficient (taking the inferences in favor of bindover) to show that […]
Double Jeopardy – Retrial Following Mistrial over Defense Objection
State v. Richard A. Moeck, 2005 WI 57, affirming 2004 WI App 47 For Moeck: David D. Cook Issue/Holding1: ¶37 A mistrial is warranted if the mistrial is “manifestly necessary.” The State bears the burden to demonstrate that a “‘manifest necessity’ [exists] for any mistrial ordered over the objection of the defendant.” A “manifest necessity” warranting a […]
Double Jeopardy – Retrial Following Mistrial over Defense Objection, Generally
State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250 For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne Issue/Holding: ¶13 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution prevent the state from trying a defendant multiple times for the same offense. [4] “[G]iven the importance of […]
Due Process – Identification Procedure – Show-up
State v. Tyrone L. Dubose, 2005 WI 126 For Dubose: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the test for admissibility of a pretrial showup should be changed. (“A ‘showup’ is an out-of-court pretrial identification procedure in which a suspect is presented singly to a witness for identification purposes.” ¶1, n. 1, quoting State v. Wolverton, 193 […]
Enhancement – OWI Prior, Collateral Attack – Procedure
State v. Alan J. Ernst, 2005 WI 107, on certification For Ernst: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue1: Whether violation of the standards mandated by State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194 ¶24, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997) for valid waiver of counsel supports a collateral attack on a prior conviction. Holding1: ¶25 … For there to be a valid collateral […]
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.