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
Prejudicial Error – Exclusion of Expert TPR Opinion Testimony
Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of whether the TPR respondent is likely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: ¶71 The State’s interest in terminating parental rights promptly […]
TPR – Substantive Due Process
Dane Co. DHS v. P.P., 2005 WI 32, affirming unpublished decision Issue: Whether § 48.424(4) (2001-02) on its face violates substantive due process, in failing to require an individualized determination of unfitness as a precondition for termination of parental rights. Holding: A parent has a fundamental liberty interest at stake in parenting his or her […]
Mandamus — Review of Denial of Judicial Substitution
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85 For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial Issue/Holding: ¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, […]
Federal Habeas: Procedure — Appellate — Standard of Review — State Court Failure to Adjudicate Merits, Effect of
Larry W. Myartt v. Frank, 7th Cir No 04-2115, 1/21/05Issue/Holding: … AEDPA standards apply only to claims that were “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In the instant case, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address Myartt’s ineffective assistance claim, which is unsurprising because Myartt’s pro se filing […]
Ambiguous Assertion of Rights — Silence
State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80 For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1: Hassel’s custodial statement, “I don’t know if I should talk to you” was ambiguous and therefore triggered no duty to terminate the interrogation, ¶¶16-19. The court of appeals purported to follow Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), […]
Miranda Waiver – Inaccurate Advice, from Counsel
State v. Xavier J. Rockette, 2005 WI App 205 For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶24 We conclude that Rockette did not waive his Miranda rights. Rockette does not argue that Chausee did anything to coerce his confession. Indeed, the purpose of Rockette’s cooperation at the interview, which his own counsel set up, was to increase […]
Noncustodial Assertion of Rights
State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80 For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Hassel’s noncustodial statement, “I can’t talk to you,” did not amount to a Miranda-protected assertion of rights, largely because such rights can’t be invoked “anticipatorily,” ¶¶8-15. (State v. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224, 325 N.W.2d 703 (1982) distinguished as a rule of evidence safeguarding […]
Statements – Voluntariness – Statements to P.O.
State v. Charles W. Mark, 2005 WI App 62, affirmed, 2006 WI 78 For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶14 … (I)f probationers are required to choose between answers that will incriminate them in pending or subsequent criminal prosecutions and loss of their conditional liberty as a price for exercising their right to remain […]
Testimony in Response to Statement Obtained in Violation of Sixth Amendment
State v. Christopher Anson, 2005 WI 96, affirming, 2004 WI App 155 For Anson: Stephen J. Watson Issue/Holding: Given a statement taken in violation of the Anson’s 6th amendment right to counsel, in which Anson admitted to facts underlying one of the charges and was prominently mentioned in the opening statements and “evidentiary phase of the trial,” and […]
Briefs – Factual Assertions – Need for Accuracy
Arents v. ANR Pipeline Co., 2005 WI App 61 Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 2: Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d) and (e) (2001-02) requires the parties to provide in their briefs separate sections for their “statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review” and argument. In their appeal, the Landowners have, inappropriately, interspersed legal argument and […]
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.