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.
Attenuation of Taint — Consent – Following Illegal Entry
State v. Kenneth M. Herrmann, 2000 WI App 38, 233 Wis. 2d 135, 608 N.W.2d 406
For Herrmann: Peter J. Morin
Issue: Whether consent to search was valid, immediately following unlawful entry of the occupant’s apartment.
Holding: Given the “coercive circumstances” – entry in middle of night, with officers yelling “search warrant” – any consent Herrmann may have given was neither voluntary nor attenuated from the illegal entry.
Attenuation of Taint — Search Warrant
State v. Kenneth M. Herrmann, 2000 WI App 38, 233 Wis. 2d 135, 608 N.W.2d 406
For Herrmann: Peter J. Morin
Issue: Whether the search warrant for Herrmann’s apartment was supported by evidence sufficiently untainted by an illegal entry into his apartment.
Holding: The untainted discovery of nine marijuana plants, prior to the occurrence of the illegal police action, provided probable cause to believe that other contraband would be found in the apartment,
Exigency — Blood Alcohol
State v. Robert W. Wodenjak, 2001 WI App 216, PFR filed 8/31/01
For Wodenjak: Rex Anderegg
Issue: Whether administration of a blood test, following OWI arrest, was reasonable under the fourth amendment, where the police first rejected the driver’s request for a (less invasive) breath test.
Holding: As long as the standard for warrantless blood draw established by State v. Bohling,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — Government Action – Conduct by Non-Police Officer Pursuant to Court Order
State v. Robert C. Knight, 2000 WI App 16, 232 Wis.2d 305, 606 N.W.2d 291.
For Knight: Scott B. Taylor.
Issue: Whether seizure of a disbarred attorney’s client files by a court-ordered trustee amounted to governmental action so as to trigger fourth amendment protections.
Holding:
¶8 Here, Garczynski’s seizure and search of Knight’s client files were conducted pursuant to an order issued by Judge Carlson under the authority conferred on the circuit courts by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Rule 22.271(2).
Plea-Withdrawal, Pre-Sentencing – Trial Court Anticipates Not Following Plea Bargain
State v. Adrian L. Williams, 2000 WI 78, 236 Wis. 2d 293, 613 N.W.2d 132, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Williams: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether “this court [should] adopt a new rule of procedure, which would require that if a trial judge anticipates exceeding the state’s sentence recommendation under a plea agreement, the trial judge must inform the defendant of that fact and allow the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.”
Guilty Pleas – Suppression Appeal (§ 971.31(10)) – Harmless Error Analysis
State v. Jerome G. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, 233 Wis. 2d 508, 608 N.W.2d 376
For Semrau: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether (assumed) erroneous refusal to suppress evidence was harmless on appeal following guilty plea, under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10).
Holding: Strength of admissible evidence, apart from unsuppressed evidence, placed Semrau in “significant risk of conviction,” so that there was no reasonable probability that the suppression ruling caused him to plead guilty,
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Ignorance of Sex Offender Registration – Prejudice to State
State v. George R. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199, affirming State v. Bollig,, 224 Wis.2d 621, 593 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bollig: Thomas E. Knothe, Collins, Quillin & Knothe, Ltd.
Issue: Whether the trial court should have granted Bollig’s pre-sentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea based on his ignorance of the sex offender registration requirement.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Guilt — as Distinct from Misconduct Evidence
State v. Michael R. Bauer, 2000 WI App 206, 238 Wis. 2d 6887, 617 N.W.2d 902
For Bauer: Thomas Voss
Issue: Whether evidence that the defendant, while awaiting trial, solicited the murders of people who were going to testify against him was admissible.
Holding:
¶2 Bauer argues that the solicitation evidence was other acts evidence which was improperly admitted pursuant to Wis. Stat.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Silence in Face of Accusation
State v. Ondra Bond, 2000 WI App 118, 237 Wis. 2d 633, 614 N.W.2d 552, affirmed by equally divided court, 2001 WI 56.
For Bond: William Coleman; Janet Barnes, Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The prosecution may not use at trial the fact that a defendant stood mute in the face of an accusation. ¶27.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Victim’s Medical Records
State v. Frank M. Ruszkiewicz, 2000 WI App 125, 237 Wis. 2d 441, 613 N.W.2d 893
For Ruszkiewicz: Mark S. Rosen
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order production of the victim’s police and medical records, sought on the theory that they might show a condition that would cause her to bruise easily and, therefore, refute the element of force as demonstrated by her bruises.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.