On Point

State v. William F. Williams, 2000 WI App 123, 237 Wis.2d 591, 614 N.W.2d 11

For Williams: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court improperly refused to adjourn trial so that the defense could secure presence of a witness.

Holding: Because the absent witness’s proposed testimony was vague as to details in support of alibi, the trial court didn’t err in finding insufficient materiality to support adjournment.

State v. Robert John Prihoda, 2000 WI 123, 239 Wis. 2d 244, 618 N.W.2d 857, affirming unpublished decision
For Prihoda: Timothy T. Kay

Issue1: “(W)hether the office of the clerk of circuit court may correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment of conviction without prior court approval.” ¶3.

Holding1: ¶5:

(W)e conclude that the office of the clerk of circuit court does not have the authority to correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment of conviction.

State v. Lawrence P. Peters, 2000 WI App 154, 237 Wis. 2d 741, 615 N.W.2d 655, petition for rev. gr., 11/15/00, reversed on other grounds, 2001 WI 74
For Peters: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether a prior offense may be used to enhance a current one, where the plea and sentencing on the prior offense were accomplished by closed-circuit television.
Holding: Although the procedure used in the prior offense violated the &sect 971.04(1) statutory mandate of actual physical presence,

State v. David S. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, 237 Wis.2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126

For Leighton: Daniel Snyder

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in denying a continuance based on assertions that lead counsel wanted to obtain assistance of another attorney in trying the case, and also was having difficulty locating certain witnesses.

Holding: Given that these witnesses ultimately testified, and that the desired attorney never made an appearance or filed a notice of retainer,

State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753

For Scott: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether a defense witness was properly impeached with evidence that he was serving life in prison with no prospect for parole.

Holding: The witness’s attempt to admit the crimes and exonerate the defendant would have misled the jury absent revelation of his functional immunity stemming from his parole status: “where no practical,

State v. Ondra Bond, 2000 WI App 118, 237 Wis. 2d 633, 614 NW2d 552, affirmed by equally divided vote, 2001 WI 56, 243 Wis. 2d 476, 627 N.W.2d 484
For Bond: William Coleman; Janet Barnes; Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether, following arrest but before administration of Miranda rights, an officer’s response to the suspect’s asking why he’d been arrested was the functional equivalent of interrogation and therefore in violation of Miranda.

State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an equivocal declaration of impartiality by a prospective juror is enough to establish subjective bias, given a trial court’s finding to the contrary.

Holding: The issue of a prospective juror’s subjective bias is reviewed on appeal through “a very deferential lens”;

State v. Scot A. Czarnecki, 2000 WI App 155, 237 Wis.2d 794, 615 N.W.2d 672
For Czarnecki: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court should have granted the defense motion to remove a prospective juror who acknowledged believing that police officers would be more credible than other witnesses.

Holding: Juror bias is reviewed with deference to the trial court’s resolution. Because police credibility was never at issue,

State v. Nathaniel A. Lindell, 2000 WI App 180, 238 Wis.2d 422, 617 N.W.2d 500, affirmed on other grounds, State v. Nathaniel A. Lindell, 2001 WI 108
For Lindell: Russell L. Hanson; Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue: Whether the prospective juror’s allowing, “I think I could” make a fair determination, established subjective bias.

Holding: The trial court’s ruling of no subjective bias isn’t clearly erroneous.

State v. Marquis O. Gilliam, 2000 WI App 152, 238 Wis.2d 1, 615 N.W.2d 660
For Gilliam: Robert B. Rondini

Issue: Whether the trial court’s denial of a motion to remove a juror based on subjective bias was clearly erroneous.

Holding: The issue of a juror’s subjective bias is reviewed deferentially to the trial court’s resolution. Though this case is different from prior cases — here, “whether the juror has expressed a prejudice or predilection in the first instance”