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
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 […]
Enlargement of NOI Deadline, Court of Appeals’ Authority / Factors to Consider
State v. Christine M. Quackenbush / State v. Michael D. Lee, 2005 WI App 2 For Quackenbush: Tyler J. Tripp For Lee: Thomas F. Locante, SPD, La Crosse Trial For Amicus: Joseph N. Ehmann, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue1: Whether, in light of State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, the court of appeals retains any […]
Cross-Appeal by Defendant: Extension of NOA Deadline
State v. Keith E. Williams, 2005 WI App 122 For Williams: Christopher William Rose Issue/Holding: The court of appeals has authority to extend the defendant’s deadline for filing cross-appeal to State’s appeal of postconviction grant of new trial: ¶4 However, as the State points out, the jurisdiction of the circuit court was initially invoked by […]
Appellate Procedure: Finality of Order – Postconviction Order Granting Plea-Withdrawal: Non-Final Order
State v. Bobby R. Williams, 2005 WI App 221 For Williams: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether a postconviction motion granting plea-withdrawal is final, so as to trigger the 45-day deadline in § 974.05(1)(a) for State’s appeal. Holding: ¶15 Wisconsin Stat. § 808.03 sets forth appeals as of right and appeals by […]
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.