On Point

State v. Joseph A. Lombard, 2003 WI App 163, affirmed, other grounds, 2004 WI 95
For Lombard: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding: Evidence sufficient to support commitment though only one state’s expert supported commitment against three defense experts:

¶21 … The State’s expert, a psychologist who evaluated Lombard for the purpose of determining whether proceedings under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 should be instituted,

State v. James Lalor, 2003 WI App 68, PFR filed 4/15/03
For Lalor: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Evidence based on actuarial instruments (RRASOR; PCL-R; MnSOST-R; V-RAG), to the effect that of people with similar scores about 50% reoffend within five years and 70% within ten years, supports finding of substantial likelihood to engage in sexual violence. ¶¶15-25.

State v. Bryan Hoover, 2003 WI App 116, PFR filed 6/26/03
For Hoover: Glenn C. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The defense wasn’t entitled to cross-examine a prosecution witness about the sentence he received on an otherwise unrelated charge, where the witness wasn’t offered a benefit in exchange for his testimony. Allowing the defense to cross-examine on the witness’s perception of what benefit he might receive sufficiently accommodated the right of confrontation.

State v. Charles Chvala, 2003 WI App 257, affirmed, 2005 WI 30
For Chvala: Lawton & Cates

Issue/Holding:

¶23. Chvala asserts that Wisconsin courts do not rely on decisions from other states to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution, and he asks that we not consider the above cases in reaching our decision. We recognize that none are binding, but there is no reason we may not consider how courts of other jurisdictions have decided the same or similar issues.

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 N.W.2d 214 (1978). There are four prerequisites for issuance of a writ of mandamus: (1) a clear legal right;

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 broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.

State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

¶22. Ramuta complains that the cumulative terms of initial confinement-thirty-five years, until he turns seventy-six-are excessive. He claims that the trial court did not adequately explain why the sentences for all but one of his crimes should be, to use Ramuta’s word,

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (ABA Standards, as “guides” to counsel’s duty to investigate, represent “clearly established precedent”); Keith B. Canaan v. McBride, 395 F. 3d 376 (7th Cir 2005):

We follow the Court’s lead in Strickland and Wiggins by looking first to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice and the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases.

State v. Gary L. Gordon, 2003 WI 69, reversing 2002 WI App 53, 250 Wis. 2d 702, 641 N.W.2d 183
For Gordon: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶24. The court of appeals held that the defense attorney’s closing argument concession on the disorderly conduct while armed count was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, improper if done without Gordon’s consent,

State v. William A. Silva, 2003 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/4/03
For Silva: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler, Donald E. Chewning

Issue/Holding: (State v. Gordon, 2003 WI 69, followed. ¶15 n. 4:)

¶19 We are satisfied that, under the circumstances, Silva’s allegations do not defeat the strong presumption that trial counsel rendered adequate assistance. Silva’s trial attorney did as well as most attorneys would have done.