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
Competency: Evidence – Attorney-Client Privilege: Counsel’s Impressions
State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks, 2003 WI 104, overruling State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks, For Meeks: Christopher T. Van Wagner Issue: Whether the trial court, in ruling on competency, improperly relied on its perceptions of the defendant’s attorney in a prior case, in stressing that that attorney hadn’t raised competency. Holding: ¶1 … At issue […]
Binding Authority – Law of the Case – Effect of Summary Affirmance
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, on certification (subsequently reversed on other grounds, State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47) For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue/Holding: Supreme court disposition of an earlier appeal via summary order is law of the case as to subsequent appeal; the order resolved a question of law despite failing to state […]
Binding Authority – Wisconsin Case Law, Subsequently Reversed “On Other Grounds”
State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 WI 33 For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: A court of appeals holding in a case reversed by the supreme court on other grounds, so that this holding was neither “overruled, withdrawn, or modified,” continues to bind the court of appeals. ¶13. The court […]
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule: Constitutionality of Statute
State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Issue/Holding: Although a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is not waived by a guilty plea (because such a defect would go to subject matter jurisdiction, something not subject to waiver), an “as applied” challenged is waived by […]
Discovery – Privileged Records
State v. Frederick Robertson, 2003 WI App 84 For Robertson: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where principal issue concerned the complainant’s credibility, indication first revealed after conviction that she had been treated for depression with psychotic features around the time of the incident required in camera inspection to determine whether her mental health records […]
Mootness — General
State v. Lindsey A.F., 2003 WI 63, affirming 2002 WI App 223, 257 Wis. 2d 650, 653 N.W.2d 116 For Lindsey A.F.: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶7 n. 5: As a general rule, this court will not consider an issue which will not have any practical effect upon an existing controversy. State v. […]
Expert — Qualifications — Lay Expert — Probation/Parole Officer, Opinion as to Likelihodd of Sexual Violence
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue/Holding: Fact that probaiton/parole agent wasn’t mental health specialist didn’t preclude him offering lay expert opinion on likelihood of ch. 980 respondent re-offending. Lay expertise may be found under § 907.02, based on relevant experience, education, and/or training.
Instructions – Self-Defense – Victim Unarmed and Not Committing Unambiguously Violent Act at Time of Death
State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing, 2000 WI App 275 (See summaries at Defenses — Defense of Self, and scroll down)
Cross-examination — Bias — Interplay with Fifth Amendment
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Issue/Holding:A line of inquiry that suggests potential bias is relevant; however, the witness’s “real and appreciable apprehension” of self-incrimination trumps the right of confrontation. In such an instance it may be necessary to prevent the witness from testifying or to […]
Cross-examination — Bias — Pending Charges
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Issue/Holding A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after […]
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.