On Point

State v. John J. Watson, 227 Wis.2d 167, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Watson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Holding: Admissibility of a psychologist’s (preliminary hearing, 980 proceeding) testimony that Watson’s crime was sexually motivated is upheld:

¶ 52. … While the average lay person may be able to draw reasonable inferences from facts, an expert ought to be able to show how a person’s offense relates to the person’s purported mental disorder,

State v. Frederick G. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed on habeas review, Frederick G. Jackson v. Frank, 02-1979, 11/6/03
For Jackson: Allan D. Krezminski.

Issue/Holding: During custodial interrogation, Jackson asked for an attorney, and the detective gave erroneous advice, namely that Jackson could have an attorney once charges “were established” (erroneous, of course, because Jackson had a right to pre-charging consultation).

State v. Robert A. Mendoza, 227 Wis.2d 838, 596 N.W.2d 736 (1999), reversing State v. Mendoza 220 Wis.2d 803, 584 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Mendoza: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Striking jurors (at state’s request) merely because they have criminal records is “an error of law,” ¶24. The court, however, goes on to review whether each such juror should have been struck for cause.

State v. James E. Erickson, 227 Wis.2d 758, 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999), on certification
For Erickson: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Though a juror gave a seemingly hedged answer (“I think so”) to whether she’d be fair and impartial, the trial court’s refusal to strike for cause is upheld given appellate deference to trial-level determination of no subjective bias. ¶¶37-44.

State v. Edron D. Broomfield, 223 Wis.2d 465, 589 N.W.2d 225 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Broomfield: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Broomfield was denied fair trial because juror overheard, prior to trial, prejudicial extraneous information relating to Broomfield’s past misconduct.

Holding: Exposure to extrinsic information implicates the rule against verdict-impeachment, R. 906.06(2). The party must first establish by competent testimony three things: extraneous (as opposed to merely deliberative) information;

State v. Judith L. Kiernan, 227 Wis.2d 736, 596 N.W.2d 760 (1999), affirming State v. Kiernan, 221 Wis.2d 126, 584 N.W.2d 203 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kiernan: Chad A. Lanning, Dennis M. Melowski, Barry S. Cohen, S.C.

Issue: Whether prospective jurors who had been part of a jury that two days earlier returned a verdict of guilty in a case involving the same defense attorney,

State v. Edron D. Broomfield, 223 Wis.2d 465, 589 N.W.2d 225 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Broomfield: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: One prospective juror heard, before trial, other prospective jurors describe Broomfield as a “gangster” who beat up kids and was involved in “drive-bys.” The juror was chosen for the petit jury; he didn’t convey this information to the others, nor was it brought up during deliberations —

State v. Lucian Agnello II, 2004 WI App 2, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/8/04, on appeal after remand, 2003 WI 44; prior history: State v. Agnello I, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999)
For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela Moorshead

Issue/Holding:

¶10. Police coercion and a defendant’s personal characteristics are interdependent concepts: the more vulnerable a person is because of his or her unique characteristics,

State v. Jonathan L. Franklin, 228 Wis.2d 408, 596 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Franklin: Archie E. Simonson

Holding: Statement taken in violation of right to counsel rule, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) is not, for that reason alone, involuntary and is therefore admissible for impeachment purposes.

The court doesn’t mention it, but this decision resolves a question held open in State v.

State v. Clyde B. Williams, 230 Wis.2d 50, 601 N.W.2d 838 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Williams: Michael E. Nieskes

Issue: Whether papers must be filed in the county of origin after a successor judge from another county is assigned to the case

Holding: “In this appeal we conclude that when a judge from a different county is assigned to a case in response to a substitution request,