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
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Failure to Research Applicable Law and Object to Inadmissible Evidence (PSR)
State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04 For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to research admissibility of testimony which controlling caselaw plainly regards as confidential was deficient: ¶23. While Swierenga’s testimony was admissible, Geske’s was not. Crowell, which Greve reaffirmed, plainly instructs that information obtained during a court-ordered […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Adequate Investigation – Expert Testimony
State v. Michael A. DeLain, 2004 WI App 79, PFR granted, on other grds. For DeLain: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: Trial counsel’s failure to “investigate and present evidence of exculpatory prior consistent statements DeLain made to co-workers” was not the product of deficient performance, given that DeLain never told counsel about these remarks, and that counsel interviewed […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Failure to Investigate – Potential Alibi Witnesses
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: Failure to locate and present the testimony of a potential alibi witness wasn’t deficient given counsel’s testimony that his investigator couldn’t locate the witness, along with Arredondo’s failure to convince the court that the investigator had been informed where the […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Failure to Investigate – Potential 3rd-Party Guilt
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue: Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a theory of 3rd-party guilt, in the absence of any evidence linking that party to the crime. Holding: ¶31. A trial attorney may select a particular defense from the available alternative […]
Defenses – Coercion – § 939.46(1)
State v. Jeffrey A. Keeran, 2004 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/5/04 For Keeran: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: ¶5 … The coercion defense is limited to the “most severe form of inducement.” State v. Amundson, 69 Wis. 2d 554, 568, 230 N.W.2d 775 (1975). It requires a finding “under the objective-reasonable man test, with regard […]
Defenses – Statute of Limitations – Tolled by Plea Agreement
State v. Robert C. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, reversing 2003 WI App 151, 266 Wis. 2d 274, 667 N.W.2d 867 For Deilke: Kelly J. McKnight Issue/Holding: ¶28 The primary purpose of the statute of limitations is to protect the accused from criminal consequences for remote past actions. State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10, ¶15, 259 Wis. 2d 523, […]
Defenses – Claim Preclusion – Discovery Violation in Prior, Dismissed Case Involving Same Charge
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Claim preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew:: ¶26. We conclude that claim preclusion is not applicable for two independent reasons. […]
Defenses – Claim Preclusion, Generally
State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130 Issue/Holding: ¶13. Barksdale next argues that, even if the circuit court properly allowed the warden to raise claim preclusion as a defense, the defense must fail because all of the elements for claim preclusion are not present. The burden of proving claim preclusion […]
Defenses – Issue Preclusion – Discovery Violation in Prior, Dismissed Case Involving Same Charge
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Issue preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew: ¶22. In the second action, the facts were different in that Miller already […]
Defenses – Claim Preclusion – Discovery Violation in Prior, Dismissed Case Involving Same Charge
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel didn’t prevent admissibility of evidence excluded as discovery sanction in prior, dismissed but then reissued action, where judge who dismissed prior action after imposing sanction contemplated that the excluded evidence would not be barred in a […]
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.