On Point

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]:

¶29      … As this court summarized in Weed, for a statement to fit recent perception exception, it must pass the following three criteria:

(1) the statement was not made in response to the instigation of a person engaged in investigating,

State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification

For Subpoenaed Individual: Stephen P. Hurley, Marcus J. Berghahn, Hal Harlowe

Issue/Holding:

¶15      A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that normally will not issue except in the absence of other adequate remedies. [6]As a remedy, writs of prohibition are often used in connection with John Doe proceedings.

State v. Eric W. Raye, 2005 WI 68, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Raye: Brian C. Hough

Issue: Whether the defendant failed to lodge contemporaneous objection (which would have waived appellate challenge) to a non-unanimous verdict revealed during jury polling when a juror indicated he did not in fact subscribe to the purported guilty verdict.

Holding:

¶29 Ultimately,

Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion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 does not outweigh the requirements of fundamental fairness and Shannon R.’s constitutionally protected due process right to be heard in a meaningful manner.

Dane Co. DHS v. P.P., 2005 WI 32, affirming unpublished decision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 children, and thus the TPR scheme must be narrowly tailored to advance the State’s interest in interfering with that right,

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, 200 Wis. 2d 496,

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 failed to develop the claim or discuss relevant Sixth Amendment principles. In these circumstances,

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), which holds that the police have no duty to clarify an ambiguous assertion of rights made after clearly waiving them.

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 his chances of securing some leniency from the State.

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 against substantive use at trial of prearrest silence.)