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
WESCL, §§ 968.27 – .37 — Unilateral Public Disclosure Not Authorized – Complaint Containing Such Disclosure Should Be Sealed
State v. Kevin Gilmore, 201 Wis. 2d 820, 549 N.W.2d 401 (1996), affirming, 193 Wis. 2d 403, 535 N.W.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1995) For Gilmore: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: We hold that while WESCL does not authorize the State’s unilateral public disclosure of intercepted communications in a criminal complaint, the State may incorporate intercepted communications in […]
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Vehicle: Armed Robbery Investigation
State v. Anthony Harris, 206 Wis. 2d 243, 557 N.W.2d 245 (1996), reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals For Harris: Robert J. Diaz Issue/Holding: The only specific and articulable facts of the record before us, namely that a vehicle pulled away from the curb close to the robbery suspect’s address, and that the vehicle contained several black […]
Reasonable Suspicion — Stop — Duration — Seeking Consent to Search Automobile After Purpose of Stop Fulfilled
State v. Daniel L. Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d 600, 558 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1996) For Gaulrapp: Ralph A. Kalal Issue/Holding: Asking the motorist, during a routine stop for a muffler violation, if he had drugs or weapons and then obtaining permission to search the vehicle didn’t illegally extend the detention: The trial court here made […]
Expectation of Privacy — Automobile Passenger — “Standing” to Challenge Stop
State v. Anthony Harris, 206 Wis. 2d 243, 557 N.W.2d 245 (1996), reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals For Harris: Robert J. Diaz Issue: Whether passenger who is not target of vehicle stop has standing to challenge its lawfulness. Holding: … [M]ost of the federal circuit courts have held that a traffic stop of a vehicle constitutes […]
Judicial Bias/Disqualification — Judge Close Relative of “Counsel Thereto” A Party
State v. Crystal Harrell a/k/a Parker, 199 Wis. 2d 654, 546 N.W.2d 115 (1996) Issue/Holding: The issue before us is whether, in a case tried by the district attorney’s office, a circuit court judge, whose spouse is an assistant district attorney in the same county, is required to disqualify himself or herself under either Wis. […]
“Shiffra” Material –Preliminary Showing for In Camera Inspection
State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391, 395, 546 N.W.2d 570 (Ct. App. 1996) For Munoz: Craig M. Kuhary Issue/Holding: Here, as in Lederer, the defense offered nothing more than “the mere possibility” that the records “might produce some evidence helpful to the defense.” Lederer, however, was decided before Shiffra. The broad language of Shiffra-“that the sought-after evidence is relevant and may […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Sexually Violent Persons Commitment
State v. Robert L. Myers, Jr., 199 Wis. 2d 391, 544 N.W.2d 609 (Ct. App. 1996) Issue/Holding: We agree with the State that the potential for a future ch. 980, Stats., commitment was a collateral consequence of Myers’ guilty plea. Trial courts may not accept a guilty plea unless they are satisfied that the plea […]
Voluntary Statements – Generally
State v. Wilfred E. Tobias, 196 Wis. 2d 537, 538 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1995) For Tobias: Barbara A. Cadwell Issue/Holding: That suspect had learning disability, required medication to deal with visual hallucinations but was off his meds during the interrogation not enough to establish voluntariness.
Briefs – Argument – Must Be Supported by Authority
State v. Mary Boyer, 198 Wis. 2d 837, 543 N.W. 562 (Ct. App. 1995): In an “argument” presented in one sentence, the defendants assert, without citation to authority, that if § 161.47, STATS., does not apply to them, “there is an equal protection under the law problem that will arise.” Arguments in appellate briefs must […]
Presentence Report — Postsentencing Access: Court Authorization Required
State ex rel. Hill v. Zimmerman, 196 Wis. 2d 419, 538 N.W.2d 608 (Ct. App. 1995) Issue/Holding: Section 972.15(2), Stats., provides, “When a presentence investigation report has been received the judge shall disclose the contents of the report to the defendant’s attorney … prior to sentencing.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, before sentencing, a defendant has an absolute right […]
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.