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
Supervisory Writ — John Doe Proceeding, Review of
State ex rel Unnamed Persons v. State, 2003 WI 30 For Unnamed Persons: Franklyn M. Gimbel, et al. Issue/Holding: ¶48. On balance, we conclude that Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 5(3), read together with the language in Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2) and in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.51(1) including “other person or body,” is sufficiently […]
Functional Equivalent of Interrogation
State v. Richard K. Fischer, 2003 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/15/03 For Fischer: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: Where “the entire exchange consisted of Fischer asking Vento about the evidence against him, and Vento merely responding to Fischer’s questions, after which Fischer would implicate himself … Vento’s words and conduct in merely responding to Fischer’s questions regarding […]
Ambiguous Assertion of Rights — Counsel
State v. Richard K. Fischer, 2003 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/15/03 For Fischer: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: ¶19. Applying Davis and Jennings here, we conclude that Fischer’s statement to detectives that if the officers read him his rights he would not answer any questions and would request an attorney is sufficiently ambiguous or equivocal such that a reasonable officer […]
Jury – Selection – “Batson”
State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03 For Ross: Andrew Mishlove Issue/Holding: ¶15. In a challenge to a Batson ruling, we review the trial court’s determination as to whether the State had a discriminatory intent as a finding of historical fact, which we shall not disturb unless clearly erroneous. State v. Gregory, 2001 WI […]
Mandamus — General
State ex rel Darrell W. Griffin v. Litscher, 2003 WI App 60 Issue/Holding: ¶5. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ which may be used to compel a public officer to perform a duty which he or she is legally bound to perform. Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Serv. Comm., 82 Wis. 2d 565, 568 n.2, 263 […]
Physical Evidence Derived from (Intentional) Miranda Violation
State v. Matthew J. Knapp (I), 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590; Knapp I reaffirmed on remand, State v. Matthew J. Knapp (II), 2005 WI 127 For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell Issue: Whether physical evidence derived from a statement taken in violation of Miranda is […]
Motion to Suppress Statement – State’s Burden of Proof, Unsworn Police Reports
State v. Joseph F. Jiles, 2003 WI 66, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals For Jiles: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: ¶35. We think it will be a rare case that the State is able to meet its burden of proof at a Miranda–Goodchild hearing by relying exclusively on an unsworn police report. ¶36. In this case, the State did […]
Confessions – Post-Polygraph – Admissibility
State v. Jeremy T. Greer, 2003 WI App 112, on remand following equally-divided result,2003 WI 30; PFR filed 6/12/03 For Greer: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶14. In this case it is not disputed that before he confessed to Detective Williams, Greer was told, both orally and in writing, that the polygraph test was over. […]
Statements – Voluntariness – Private Citizen’s Coercion
State v. Marvin J. Moss, 2003 WI App 239, PFR filed 10/27/03 For Moss: F.M. Van Hecke Issue/Holding: ¶2. The issue in this case is whether a defendant’s incriminating statement improperly coerced by a person who is not a state agent offends constitutional due process such that the statement is inadmissible. We conclude that there is […]
Briefs – Citing Unpublished Opinion
Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46 Issue/Holding: ¶12 n. 7: We note that in this opinion we do cite to two unpublished opinions from other states. Wisconsin Stat. § 809.23(3) does not prohibit us from doing so. In Brandt v. LIRC, 160 Wis. 2d 353, 466 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1991), aff’d, 166 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.