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
SVP – Trial – Jury Selection – Failure to Strike Juror – Reviewability
State v. Richard A. Brown (II), 2002 WI App 260, PFR filed 10/22/02 For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶16. Brown next argues that the trial court erred in failing to strike a prospective juror for cause and that he was prejudiced by being forced to use one of his peremptory strikes […]
SVP – Trial – Jury Selection – Number of Peremptory Challenges
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue: Whether a respondent is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges prescribed by § 972.03, because of the potential for life-long custody. Holding: Because an SVP respondent is entitled to periodic review, the analogy to a life sentence fails, and peremptory challenges are […]
SVP – Pretrial – Petition — Timeliness — Calculation of Release Date on Concurrent Sentences
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue: Whether the state’s petition was timely, where the respondent had already completed his sentence on the qualifying conviction but was serving concurrent sentences with the controlling sentence a non-qualifying conviction. Holding: State v. Keith, 216 Wis. 2d 61, 573 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. […]
Sentencing – Factors – Interplay with First Amendment-Protected Activity
State v. Aaron O. Schreiber, 2002 WI App 75, PFR filed 3/12/02 For Schreiber: William J. Donarski Issue/Holding: “A sentencing court may consider writings and statements otherwise protected so long as there is a sufficient nexus to the defendant’s conduct and where the writings are relevant to the issues involved.” ¶16, citing Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, […]
Sentencing – Review — Harshness
State v. Christopher Kaczynski, 2002 WI App 276, PFR filed 11/20/02 For Kaczynski: Eugene Kaluzny Issue/Holding: Sentence of 10 years, where the conduct would have supported charges carrying 45 years, isn’t harsh. ¶13.
Sentencing – Factors — Refusal to Identify Accomplice
State v. Christopher Kaczynski, 2002 WI App 276, PFR filed 11/20/02 For Kaczynski: Eugene Kaluzny Issue/Holding: ¶9. It has long been the law in Wisconsin that, unless a defendant’s rights against self-incrimination are implicated (and Kaczynski makes no claim that they are), it is “entirely proper” for a trial court “to consider on sentencing, the […]
Sentencing – Review – Factors – Jail Credit as Affecting Length of Sentence
State v. Eric S. Fenz, 2002 WI App 244 For Fenz: Jacob W. Gobel Issue: Whether the sentencing court may take into account the amount of jail credit to be awarded, in the narrow instance where the court wants to assure a term of imprisonment sufficiently lengthy to allow exposure to a treatment program. Holding: ¶10. Fenz argues […]
Sentencing – Review – Excessiveness – Maximum Doesn’t “Shock Public Sentiment”
State v. Aaron O. Schreiber, 2002 WI App 75, PFR filed 3/12/02 For Schreiber: William J. Donarski Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly considered the three primary sentencing factors — gravity of offense, defendant’s character, need to protect public — and the weight assigned each is delegated primarily to the trial court. (Schreiber’s argument that the sentencing […]
Sentencing – Review — Undue Harshness — Presumption of Correctness
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: A sentence well within the maximum (here, 44 years out of a possible 110) is presumptively not unduly harsh. ¶¶29-33.
Sentencing – Review — Inaccurate Information — Trial Court Disclaimer of Reliance not Controlling
State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02 For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Trial court disclaimer (via postconviction ruling) of reliance on information challenged as inaccurate isn’t binding: rather, appellate court “may independently review the record to determine the existence of any such reliance.” ¶¶27-28. Here, […]
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.