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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
In published decision, COA holds that corporation counsel is not a party under 48.13 when they are not a petitioner
S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.
COA holds that while service was defective in TPR, court’s factual findings merit affirmance
Brown County v. N.H., 2024AP1991-1993, 4/2/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although the County erred by listing the wrong date in a published notice, COA affirms given the court’s factual findings that the respondent was served by mail.
Seventh Circuit retrospectively evaluates habeas petitioner’s competence at his 2006 trial; despite low IQ and mental illness, court denies due process and IAC claims.
Jacob Alan Powers v. Jon Noble, No. 24-2134, 3/25/25
The Seventh Circuit found that Jacob Powers was competent to stand trial in a Wisconsin court in 2006 for sexual assault of a child and child enticement. Although Powers’ IQ was in the borderline/mild mental retardation range; his trial testimony, trial counsel’s decision not to challenge his competency, and two experts’ findings that he was competent convinced the Court that he reasonably understood the charges against him, trial procedures, and could assist his lawyer in his defense. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s order denying Powers’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
COA affirms resentencing denial, holds judge’s comments about defendant’s non-criminal sexual behavior, etc. did not show objective bias
State v. Anthony J. LaRose, 2022AP647-CR, District 3, 3/25/25 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
LaRose appeals an order denying his postconviction motion for resentencing on his conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, in which he claimed that the circuit court judge was biased against him based on three sets of facts. COA rejects all of LaRose’s arguments and affirms, holding that the court’s comments were related to appropriate sentencing factors and LaRose failed to establish sufficient risk of actual bias.
Seventh Circuit remands for new trial as to whether MPD officers conducted illegal stop and frisk
Isaiah Taylor v. Justin Schwarzhuber, No. 23-3151, 3/17/25
In a rare win, Taylor will have another chance to prove that MPD officers violated his rights when they seized him while he was out delivering a Christmas turkey to a friend.
COA again finds that consent to blood draw was valid, distinguishing Blackman
State v. Justin Dennis Krizan, 2022AP1341-CR, 3/4/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity
Applying its recent holding in State v. Gore, 2025 WI App 11, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.3d ___ (see our post on Gore here), the COA concludes that Krizan’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent.
At least two justices on US Supreme Court believe it is high time to rethink Confrontation Clause jurisprudence
In their dissents from an order denying cert, two justices leave a trail of breadcrumbs for litigators frustrated by the discordant state of the law with respect to the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause.
SCOTUS grants new trial due to prosecutor’s failure to correct false testimony
Glossip v. Oklahoma, USSC No. 22-7466, 2/25/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
In a 5-3 defense win, the legal system finally yields to the prosecutor’s concession that Glossip is entitled to a new trial.
COA concludes investigative stop was valid in OWI decision recommended for publication
State v. Jody William Solom, 2024AP691-CR, 3/19/25, District II (recommended for publication), case activity
Solom appeals from a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), sixth offense. He asserts the investigative stop was unlawful and should have been suppression. COA disagrees and affirms.
COA affirms restitution order where no evidence presented to contradict factual assertions; IAC claim forfeited if not raised in circuit court.
State v. Martha R. Elsila, 2024AP1444-CR, 3/19/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms restitution order on appeal challenging witness’s credibility and claiming IAC. COA deferred to the circuit court’s credibility determination given no evidence was presented to contradict witness, and found that appellant’s IAC claim was forfeited because it was not raised in the circuit court.
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.