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
Review — Forfeiture — “Excessive Fines Clause”
State v. Kirk J. Bergquist, 2002 WI App 39 For Berhquist: Steven H. Gibbs Issue: Whether the state’s refusal to return guns valued at between $5000 and $7,150, following conviction for disorderly conduct, violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause. Holding: ¶8. Although the term “forfeiture” does not appear in this statute, our supreme court has […]
Harsh and Excessive – Post-Sentencing Reduction of Maximum Penalty
State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265, 258 Wis. 2d 473, 654 N.W.2d 446 For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School Issue/Holding: Subsequent legislative reclassification of offense, which substantially reduced maximum penalty, didn’t make Gallion’s sentence harsh and […]
Sentencing – Review — Inaccurate Information — Procedure for Challenging
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: ¶22. A defendant who asks for resentencing because the court relied on inaccurate information must show both that the information was inaccurate and that the court relied on it. Id. The defendant […]
SVP – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient, where a qualified psychologist testified that respondent had two disorders (paraphilia and personality disorder).
SVP – Trial: Venue – County of Predicate Offense
State v. Bernard G. Tainter, 2002 WI App 296, PFR filed 12/23/02 Issue/Holding: ¶14. Wisconsin Const. art. I, § 7, grants criminal defendants the right to a trial “by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed; which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” […]
SVP – Trial: Witnesses – Lay Expert – Probation/Parole Officer
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue: Whether a probation and parole agent was properly allowed to give an opinion regarding the likelihood of the respondent reoffending. Holding: ¶29. The fact that Kittman was not a psychologist or mental health specialist did not preclude his testimony. Under Wis. Stat. […]
Confrontation – Bias: Pending Charges
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds 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 […]
Confrontation – 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 […]
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction: General
State v. Brian B. Burke, 2002 WI App 291, PFR filed 11/29/02 For Burke: Robert H. Friebert Issue/Holding: ¶4. First, as the trial court noted, we may not read our 1848 constitution using modern definitions and syntax. We are to examine: (1) The [nineteenth century] plain meaning of the words in the context used; (2) […]
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Prior Representation by Prosecutor: Unrelated Civil Forfeiture
State v. Peter G. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281, PFR filed 11/14/02 For Tkacz: Mark S. Rosen Issue: Whether the prosecutor’s prior representation of the defendant in a civil forfeiture worked a disqualifying conflict of interest. Holding: The standard for analyzing the existence of a conflict of interest (raised before trial) in serial representation is the “substantial […]
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.