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
Guilty Pleas – Post-Sentencing Plea Withdrawal: Suppression of Material Exculpatory Impeachment Evidence – Statutory Basis
State v. Kevin Harris, 2004 WI 64, affirming as modified 2003 WI App 144, 266 Wis. 2d 200, 667 N.W.2d 813 For Harris: Steven A. Koch Issue/Holding: ¶34 We recognize that in the constitutional context, the Brady requirement of materiality is dependent upon whether the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial […]
Hearsay – Against-Penal Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4)
State v. Joseph J. Guerard, 2004 WI 85, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals For Guerard: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: ¶23. The central issue in this case is the extent of corroboration required under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(4) for statements tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused. We addressed this […]
Legislative Privilege, § 13.96 – “Confidential” Distinguished from “Privileged”
Custodian of Records for Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, reconsideration denied, 2004 WI 149 Issue/Holding: ¶11 Wahl contends that Wis. Stat. § 13.96, as it interacts with Wis. Stat. § 905.01, creates a statutory privilege that, while not expressly stated, is implicit in LTSB’s obligation to treat all information within its possession as […]
Supervisory writs generally
State ex rel Ralph A. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58 For Kalal: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: ¶17 A “writ of supervision is not a substitute for an appeal.” State ex rel. Dressler v. Circuit Court for Racine County, 163 Wis. 2d 622, 630, 472 N.W.2d 532 (Ct. App. 1991). The […]
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised Release – Procedure – Appointment of Expert for Subject, §§ 980.08(3)-(4)
State v. Dennis Thiel, 2004 WI App 225 For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue1: Whether the court must appoint an examiner for the subject under § 980.08(3) when it has already appointed one under § 980.08(4). Holding: ¶17. The parties agree that the language of Wis. Stat. § 980.08(3) requires the circuit […]
Grounds — Denial of Physical Placement: § 48.356(2) Warnings in Underlying Order Unnecessary
Kimberly S.S. v. Sebastian X.L., 2004 WI App 83 Issue: Whether § 48.415(4) requires proof that an underlying family court order denying physical placement contained the warnings required by § 48.356(2). Holding: ¶7. The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4) requires proof that the notices in Wis. Stat. § 48.356(2) were provided only when the underlying […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Presentation/Examination of Witnesses – Impeachment
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: “Second, Arredondo claims that his trial attorney failed to impeach Garza’s testimony with false statements Garza made to the police. This claim fails on both the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Arredondo cannot show prejudice because Garza admitted on direct-examination that […]
Federal Habeas: Procedure — Appellate — Standard of Review, Generally
Alphonso Hubanks v. Frank, 392 F. 3d 926 (04-1043, 12/22/04) For Hubanks: Robert J. Dvorak Issue/Holding: Habeas relief is appropriate pursuant to § 2254(d)(1) if the state court identified the right legal principle as determined by the Supreme Court but unreasonably applied that principle to the facts of the case. The standard for proving an […]
Jury – Selection – “Batson” Issue
State v. George Melvin Taylor, 2004 WI App 81, PFR filed 4/13/04 For Taylor: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶18. Accordingly, we must now turn to the Batson challenge itself. Our supreme court has adopted the Batson principles and analysis. State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, ¶22, 262 Wis. 2d 747, 664 N.W.2d 607 (citing State v. Davidson, 166 Wis. 2d 35, […]
Custody — Juvenile Suspect
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004) Issue/Holding1: In determining whether a person is “in custody,” the question is whether, examining the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the petitioner’s position would have felt “at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). In making this […]
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.