On Point

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 ongoing unlawful scheme. ¶50, quoting United States v. Chen,

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 discretion in simply rebuffing the claim of privilege without finding the existence of substantial need preparation in anticipation of litigation.

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.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion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 above considerations,

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 the plea is likely to result in the defendant’s deportation,

State v. John T. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, affirming unpublished decision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 1986,

State v. Scott G. Zuniga, 2002 WI App 233, PFR filed 9/13/02
For Zuniga: Chad G. Kerkman

Issue/Holding: Because the defendant was warned by the judge at a bond-release hearing that if he engaged in misconduct the state would seek a longer sentence, “the parties effectively modified the plea agreement by making the State’s obligation conditional upon Zuniga’s good behavior while in the community. In proceeding under these circumstances,

State v. Paul Delao Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52
For Quiroz: Chad G. Kerkman

Issue:Whether defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea on the basis that he was unaware of the three-year presumptive minimum sentence on the weapon enhancer.

Holding:

¶25 Both the complaint and the information contained the dangerous weapon enhancer and set forth the presumptive three-year minimum penalty. Quiroz admitted that he was familiar with both the complaint and the information and was aware that the dangerous weapon enhancer applied when he pled guilty.

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 the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.

State v. Troy D. Moore, 2002 WI App 245
For Moore: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Extrinsic evidence offered by the state solely to bolster a witness’s credibility, by showing that he had provided reliable information leading to the arrests of other drug dealers, violated § 906.08(2). ¶15. (Note: the court holds open the question of whether such evidence might be admissible under § 904.04(2).