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
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Prior Sexual Assaults — 15-25 Years Earlier, not Remote
State v. Eugene P. Opalewski, 2002 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/02 For Opalewski: Lorinne J. Cunningham Issue/Holding: On charges of first degree sexual assault of a child and incest, evidence of the defendant’s past sexual abuse of his two daughters and the children of a prior girlfriend was admissible under the three-step test of State v. Sullivan, […]
Privilege – Confidential Informant, § 905.10(3)(b) – Procedure for Disclosing
State v. Marc Norfleet, 2002 WI App 140 For Norfleet: Alan D. Eisenberg Issue/Holding: Once the trial court reasonably determines that disclosure of an informant’s identity is required, there is no need to hold an in camera hearing, ¶¶13-14.
Attorney-client Communications, § 905.03 — Billing Records
Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification Issue/Holding: The attorney-client privilege shields statements from attorney to client, such as billing records only to the extent that disclosure would “reveal[] the substance of lawyer-client communications.” ¶40. The undisputed record here shows that the sought billing records “contain detailed descriptions of the nature of […]
Attorney-client Communications, § 905.03 – “Corporate Entity” Rule
Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification Issue/Holding: A former officer and director of a corporation is not entitled to waive the corporation’s attorney-client privilege, even with regard to information generated during the person’s corporate tenure. Under the “entity rule,” the privilege belongs solely to the corporation, and only the corporation may […]
Attorney-client Communications, § 905.03 – Crime-Fraud Exception
Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification Issue/Holding: Although a mere allegation is insufficient, the burden for establishing a prima facie case of the attorney-client crime-fraud exception is low — reasonable cause (i.e., more than suspicion but less than preponderance-of-evidence) to believe that the attorney’s services were utilized in furtherance of the […]
Attorney-client Communications – Work Product
Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification Issue/Holding: Work-product is a “qualified privilege” to refuse disclosure of materials generated by counsel in anticipation of litigation that only gives way upon showing of substantial need along with undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent through other means. ¶61. The trial court erroneously exercised […]
Attorney-client Communications – Government Lawyer
In Re: A Witness Before the Special Grand Jury, 288 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2002) Issue/Holding: Privilege between government lawyer and client — state agency — does not extend to criminal proceedings such as grand jury investigation.
“Shiffra” Material – Preliminary Showing for In Camera Inspection
State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold Issue/Holding: The court modifies the threshold showing required for an in camerainspection, in favor of “a slightly higher standard,” namely a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the records will be necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence.”¶32. ¶34. Based on the […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Deportation
State v. Sisakhone S. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62 For Douangmala: Robert R. Flatley Issue/Holding: ¶3 This case presents the following question: If a circuit court fails to give the deportation warning required by § 971.08(1)(c), when accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, is a defendant entitled to withdraw the plea later upon a showing that […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Court Need Not Explain How State Must Prove Each Element
State v. John T. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, affirming unpublished decision For Trochinski: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the defendant met his burden of showing a prima facie case that he didn’t understand an element of the offense to which he pleaded guilty. Holding: ¶22. Wisconsin’s courts have been relying on Bangert since it was written in […]
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.