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
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Doubtful Fairness: Unequivocal Expression
State v. Howard C. Carter, 2002 WI App 55 For Howard: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Although review of a trial court’s determination of subjective (non-)bias of a prospective juror is generally deferential, here review is independent “because this is one of those rare situations where the prospective juror’s unambiguous response, rather than his […]
Right to Silence During Pendency of Direct Appeal
State ex rel. Gary Tate v. Schwarz, 2002 WI 127, reversing 2001 WI App 131 For Tate: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela S. Moorshead, Buting & Williams Issue/Holding: The Evans-Thompson rule — “the state may compel a probationer to answer self-incriminating questions from his probation or parole agent, or suffer the consequence of revocation for refusing to do so, only ‘if […]
Briefs — Appendix — Composition
State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8 n. 4: The State moves to strike Williams’ appendix to his brief. It asserts that the inclusion of excerpts from the BNA Criminal Practice Guide and copies of articles pertaining to drug analysis and crime […]
Briefs – Reply Brief Failure to Address Argument
State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App 98 For Chu: Andrew Shaw, Rex R. Anderegg Issue/Holding: ¶41. In his reply brief, Chu offers no response to the State’s argument concerning information about Wales. Unrefuted arguments are deemed admitted. See Charolais Breeding Ranches v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 […]
Notice of Appeal – Unsigned
State v. Marvin C. Seay, State v. Christopher Tillman, 2002 WI App 37 Issue/Holding: ¶1. In these two appeals, the appellants filed unsigned notices of appeal with the clerks of the circuit courts. The issue is whether the failure to sign the notice of appeal deprives this court of appellate jurisdiction. In accord with the […]
Sentence Credit – Electronic Monitoring
State ex rel. Willie C. Simpson v. Schwarz, 2002 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/11/02 Issue: Whether spent on electronic monitoring while on probation supports sentence credit following revocation. Holding: Because the probationer could not have been charged with escape for leaving electronic monitoring, he isn’t entitled to sentence credit for the time he spent on electronic monitoring. […]
Counsel — Waiver — Necessity for Evidentiary Hearing
State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02 For Polak: Philip J. Brehm Issue/Holding: ¶15. When an adequate colloquy is not conducted, and the defendant makes a motion for a new trial or other postconviction relief from the trial court’s judgment, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the […]
Defendant’s Presence at Postconviction Hearing
State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02 For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser Issue/Hearing: The defendant’s right to personal presence at a postconviction evidentiary hearing hinges on the existence of substantial issues of fact in which the defendant participated. Here, there was a substantial dispute, but it related to a “side issue,” […]
Sentence credit – Delayed Report Date Due to Jail Overcrowding
State v. Anthony J. Dentici, Jr., 2002 WI App 77, PFR filed 2/5/02 For Dentici: Joseph E. Redding Issue/Holding: ¶1 … Dentici claims that he is entitled to twenty-five days’ credit pursuant to State v. Riske, 152 Wis. 2d 260, 448 N.W.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1989), because, after being sentenced to sixty days at the House of […]
Motion to Reconsider Trial Court Ruling – Inherent Authority of Court to Entertain
State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02 For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser Issue/Hearing: The trial court has inherent authority to vacate or modify an order (including, as in this instance, on state’s motion). ¶¶13-15.
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.