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 – Coconspirator’s Statement “Non-Testimonial” – Reliable under Ohio v. Roberts
State v. Boon Savanh, 2005 WI App 245 For Savanh: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding1: Statement of coconspirator during drug transaction, conveyed to jury via police informant buying drugs as part of controlled buy, not “testimonial”: ¶25 We do not think an objective witness would reasonably believe that Vongrasamy would have thought his informal telephone conversation […]
Confrontation – Hearsay – Recent Perception / Excited Utterance (- & Statement Not Admitted For Its Truth)
State v. Donavin Hemphill, 2005 WI App 248 N.B. The holding quoted below was overruled, in State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, ¶24n. 8. In other words, “a spontaneous statement to a police officer” is not, as a matter of law, non-testimonial. For Hemphill: Jeffrey Jensen Issue/Holding: An out-of-court statement by a witness […]
Conforntation – Videotaped Statements of Children, § 908.08 – Constitutionality
State v. Kevin D. James, 2005 WI App 188 For James: Terry W. Rose Issue/Holding: The mere fact that § 908.08 imposes a mandatory protocol (videotape admitted into evidence first; child called to testify afterward) violates neither confrontation, ¶¶10-14, nor separation-of-powers, ¶¶15-25, doctrines.This statutory procedure allows the State to introduce a child’s videotaped statement, with […]
Confrontation – Videotaped Statements of Children, § 908.08(5)
State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238 For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs Issue/Holding: Issue/Holding: Pretrial videotaped statement, § 908.08(5), doesn’t violate confrontation when the person actually testifies, ¶24.
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11
State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80 For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 n. 3: Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court construed article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution as providing greater protection against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. […]
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – “New Federalism” – Double Jeopardy Clause
State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250 For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ….” […]
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction: Victims’ Rights Amendment, Art. I, § 9m
Patrick G. Schilling v. State Crime Victims Rights Board, 2005 WI 17, on certification Issue/Holding: The first sentence of Art. I, § 9m (“dignity” provision) is a statement of purpose, articulating the importance of crime victims’ rights, but is not self-executing. ¶¶13-26. General methodology of interpreting constitutional provision – plain meaning of words; constitutional debates; […]
Writs – 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 […]
Writs – Prohibition – John Doe Proceeding
State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification 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 […]
Ambiguity in Oral Pronouncement, Resolved by Written Judgment
State v. Edward W. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175 For Fisher: Eileen Miller Carter Issue/Holding: ¶16 Fisher’s contentions grossly misrepresent the record. Assuming the court’s oral ruling contained some ambiguity, the written judgment of conviction and the conditions of extended supervision are crystal clear with respect to what conduct the conditions cover. See Jackson v. Gray, 212 Wis. […]
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.