On Point

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the probable cause hearing was held within 72 hours of filing of the Ch. 980 petition, as required by § 980.04(2).

Holding: The trial court’s finding that the hearing was held within 72 hours of filing, exclusive of the weekend, is not clearly erroneous.

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue/Holding: Prediction of future dangerousness may be made of a juvenile in a Ch. 980 proceeding.

The state’s experts assessed Matthew’s dangerousness by using the “Doren criteria,” which were developed through research involving adults. Moreover, Matthew adduced evidence “that juveniles have a lower propensity to reoffend in sexual violence situations.”

State v. Richard A.P., 223 Wis.2d 777, 589 N.W.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1998).

For Richard: Robert Henak.

Diagnosis of multiple personality disorder, to impeach witness: evidence of mental impairment does not, without more, affect witness’s credibility. Without evidence that this condition affected the witness’s recall ability, it is irrelevant.

State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below.
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes

Issue/Holding: Applying the test of State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 647-48, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990), the court finds evidence of prior sexual assaults necessary “to rebut the logical and weighty inference that the victim gained sexual knowledge because the defendant committed the acts charged,” 

State v. Daniel Anderson, 219 Wis.2d 739, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998), reversing State v. Anderson, 214 Wis. 2d 126, 570 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Anderson: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether violating different conditions of a single bond supports multiple bail jumping counts.

Holding: Anderson, released on an otherwise unrelated case, was ordered as a condition of bail not to drink or have contact with the victim.

Reuben Adams v. Bartow, 330 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2003), denying habeas relief in State v. Adams, 223 Wis. 2d 60, 588 N.W.2d 336 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Adams: Samuel Arena (Foley & Lardner)

Issue: Whether the state court affirmance of Adams’ commitment unreasonably applied Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) or Foucha v.

State ex rel. Phillip I. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), affirming 211 Wis. 2d 708, 566 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1997) / State v. Phillip I. Warren, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), on certification
For Warren: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue: Whether Warren was entitled to appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings.

Holding (¶66):

¶66 Warren’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Wis.

State v. Shonna Hobson, 218 Wis.2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), on certification
For Hobson: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, LAIP, UW Law School

Holding: Wisconsin recognizes a common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest (i.e., w/o made w/o probable cause); but having recognized that privilege, the court simultaneously abrogates it (albeit prospectively only, because of ex post facto concerns). The holding is limited to “unlawful interference with the person”

State v. Prokopios G. Vassos, 218 Wis.2d 330, 579 N.W.2d 35 (1998), on certification
For Vassos: Edmund C. Carns

Holding: Successive prosecution for misdemeanor battery (§ 940.19(1)), following acquittal of felony battery (§ 940.19(3)) arising from same incident, wasn’t barred by double jeopardy. Successive prosecutions are barred under § 939.71 when the subsequent charge is the “same” offense under the “elements-only” test. That test isn’t met here,

State v. Matthew C. Janssen, 219 Wis.2d 362, 580 N.W.2d 260 (1998), affirming 213 Wis. 2d 471, 570 N.W.2d 746 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Janssen: Eugene A. Bartman, Brian G. Figy, SPD, Appleton Trial

Issue: Whether the flag desecration statute is constitutional.

Holding: The flag desecration statute, sec. 946.05, violates first amendment overbreadth principles, and can’t be saved by severing the unconstitutional portions.