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.
Rape-Shield, § 972.11 – Complainant’s Prior Sexual Conduct – Alternative Source of Sexual Knowledge
State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 2002 WI 50, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For St. George: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: “Was the circuit court’s exclusion of the defendant’s proffered evidence of the child victim’s prior sexual contact with another child a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence?” ¶2.
Holding: Application of § 972.11 to deprivation of the defendant of his constitutional rights is a question of “constitutional fact”
§ 904.01, Relevance – “Profile Character” (Richard A.P.) Evidence (Absence of Sex Offender Characteristics)
State v. Glenn E. Davis, 2002 WI 75, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 210, 247 Wis. 2d 917, 634 N.W.2d 922
For Davis: James M. Shellow
Issue: Whether Richard A.P. evidence — that the defendant lacks the psychological characteristics of a sex offender and, therefore, was unlikely to have committed the charged offense — is admissible.
Holding:
¶15.
Expert — Recantation and Interview Techniques
State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 2002 WI 50, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For St. George: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: “Was the circuit court’s exclusion of the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness an erroneous exercise of discretion, or alternatively, a deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence, as the defendant asserted?” ¶2
Holding: The trial court’s rejection of the expert was based on his lack of extensive experience in the area;
Involuntary Statement — Procedure for Challenging
State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565
For Samuel: Robert A. Henak
Issue/Holding: Ҧ35. Under Velez, first the defendant must bring a motion to suppress, alleging facts sufficient to show that a statement was involuntary under Clappes and that the police misconduct at issue is egregious such that it produces statements that are unreliable as a matter of law.
Involuntary Statement — Test
State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565
For Samuel: Robert A. Henak
Issue/Holding: Ҧ30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product of coercion, the police misconduct must be more than that set forth in Clappes.
Custody — Handcuffed in Squad
State v. Zan Morgan, 2002 WI App 124
For Morgan: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether Morgan was in custody, for Miranda purposes, after being handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car.
Holding: Custody is determined under “the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as: the defendant’s freedom to leave; the purpose, place, and length of the interrogation; and the degree of restraint.”
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 demeanor, is the basis of his subjective bias.” ¶10. And, because the juror openly admitted his bias,
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 he is protected by a grant of immunity that renders the compelled testimony inadmissible against the [probationer] in a criminal prosecution’”
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 labs are outside the scope of what is permissible in an appendix.
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 (Ct. App. 1979). Accordingly, we reject his argument without further discussion
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.