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
Street Clothes Rather than Jail Garb — No Right to Appear in
State v. Cornelius R. Reed, 2002 WI App 209, PFR filed 7/16/02 For Reed: Stephanie G. Rapkin Issue/Holding: The trial court has discretion to deny a defense request that a witness be allowed to testify in street rather than jail clothes. That discretion was properly exercised here: allowing the witnesses to change in bullpens would have […]
Ambiguous Assertion of Rights — Counsel
State v. Edward Terrell Jennings, 2002 WI 44, on certification For Jennings: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the police may continue to interrogate a suspect who has ambiguously asserted rights, — in this instance, “I think maybe I need to talk to a lawyer.” Holding: ¶36. Applying Davis, we conclude that Jennings’ statement to Detective […]
SVP – Substantive Due Process – Jury Finding of Serious Difficulty Controlling Behavior
State v. John Lee Laxton, 2002 WI 82, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision (Affirmed on habeas review, John L. Laxton v. Bartow, 421 F.3d 565 (7th Cir 2005)) For Laxton: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether ch. 980 is unconstitutional by failing to adequately narrow the class of commitment subjects to those with serious difficulty controlling […]
SVP – Trial – Jury Instructions – Serious Difficulty Controlling Behavior
State v. John Lee Laxton, 2002 WI 82, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision (Affirmed on other grounds, habeas review, John L. Laxton v. Bartow, 421 F.3d 565 (7th Cir 2005)) For Laxton: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the jury instructions adequately conveyed the requirement of mental disorder causing serious difficulty in […]
Interlocutory Appeal – Timeliness
State v. David C. Polashek, 2002 WI 74, affirming in part and reversing in part, State v. Polashek, 2001 WI App 130, 246 Wis. 2d For Polashek: Nila Jean Robinson Issue: Whether the state’s petition for leave to appeal a non-final order was timely, where the order was issued “nunc pro tunc” in reference to […]
Voluntary Dismissal, § 809.18 — Timing
State v. Joeval M. Jones, 2002 WI 53, ordering withdrawal of opinion in State v. Jones, 2002 WI App 29, 250 Wis. 2d 77, 640 N.W.2d 151 For Jones: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Under State v. Lee, 197 Wis. 2d 959, 542 N.W.2d 143 (1996), “the court of appeals may not refuse […]
Sequestration — Prosecutor Talking to Witness During Break
State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold Issue/Holding: ¶40. Green contends that the prosecutor, not the witness, violated the sequestration order by conversing with the witness during trial…. Green has not provided any support for the contention that a prosecutor violates a sequestration […]
Appelate Procedure – Review: Discretion, Undisputed Facts
Calumet County DHS v. Randall H., 2002 WI 126, on certification Issue/Holding: Where “the procedural history” and “the underlying facts” are not in dispute, “a determination of whether the facts meet the applicable legal standard” is reviewed de novo.
Binding Authority – Conflict in Precedential Case Law – U.S. Supreme Court
State v. Edward Terrell Jennings, 2002 WI 44, on certification For Jennings: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶3. We conclude that when confronted with a direct conflict between a decision of this court and a later decision of the United States Supreme Court on a matter of federal law, the court of appeals may, […]
Mental Health Commitment – “Fifth Standard” – Constitutionality
State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, on certification For Dennis H.: Ellen Henak, SPD Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether the “fifth standard” for mental commitment, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e. (roughly: refusing treatment due to incapacity for making rational treatment decision), is constitutional. Holding: The statute isn’t vague — the state must prove the various “elements” of this standard (which the […]
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.