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.

In decision recommended for publication, COA approves use of “readers” at preliminary hearings

State v. Latres Christopher Robinson, 2025AP983-CR, 3/12/26, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a decision resolving an issue which has been percolating since SCOW’s decision in O’Brien over a decade ago, COA approves the practice of calling an investigator to read the criminal complaint into the record in order to satisfy the preliminary hearing requirement.

Read full article >

COA: Collateral attack on prior OWI must allege defendant did not know potential penalties even if plea colloquy was defective; affiant requesting warrant for blood draw need not have witnessed arrest.

State of Wisconsin v. Jonathon L. Sundermeyer, 2024AP2007-CR, 3/3/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA concludes a defective plea colloquy was not sufficient to collaterally attack the defendant’s prior OWI conviction where the defendant did not establish he was unaware of the potential penalties for his prior conviction.  The COA also determined an officer’s affidavit in support of a blood draw complies with the constitutional requirement for an an affidavit to be supported by oath or affirmation where the officer was not present when the defendant was arrested for operating while intoxicated (OWI) but relied on information from an officer who was present.

Read full article >

COA rejects challenges to TPR dispositional order and affirms

Jefferson County DHS v. G.J.J., 2025AP2491, 3/5/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

While G.J.J. gets closer than most–and his arguments even give COA “pause”–ultimately, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.

Read full article >

Defense win: COA reverses guardianship med order

Grant County Dept of Social Services v. D.G.N., 2025AP2382, 2/27/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In this appeal limited to the validity of an order for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication in a guardianship case, COA holds that the county failed to meet two of the Wis. Stat. § 55.14(3) requirements.

Read full article >

SCOW reverses COA in 971.14 med order appeal, decides standard of review for Sell factors, limits Green’s applicability, and declines to resolve several issues

State v. J.D.B., 2026 WI , 2/25/26, reversing a published court of appeals opinion; case activity

SCOW reverses the COA, holding , clarifies the standard of review for each of the Sell factors, holds that Green is overruled to the extent that it “require[d] each and every piece of information it lists” and declines to decide several issues.

Read full article >

SCOTUS holds that trial court may limit discussion between defendant and counsel during overnight trial recess about defendant’s testimony for its own sake but not about issues incidental to testimony.

Villarreal v. Texas, USSC No. 24-557, 2/25/2025, affirming Villarreal v. State, 707 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 2024) ; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

SCOTUS holds that testifying criminal defendant may be prohibited by trial court from conferring with defense counsel during an overnight recess about testimony for its own sake but not about matters incidental to testimony.

Read full article >

COA: Reasonable suspicion for traffic stop after report to police that vehicle hit road barrier and officer observed “unusual” driving behavior

State of Wisconsin v. Jonathan G. Berbaum, 2025AP1380-CR, 2/25/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of a traffic stop, which included evidence that led to his conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a third offense.  The COA found that a witness’s report that a vehicle hit a barrier, combined with the defendant’s erratic driving, provided reasonable suspicion to suspect the driver was operating while intoxicated.

Read full article >

SCOW holds that ESP was not acting as government agent when it scanned files for CSAM

State v. Andreas W. Rauch-Sharak, 2026 WI 4, 2/24/26, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity

SCOW holds that Google’s search of Rauch-Sharak’s files was a private search, slightly clarifies that legal test, and affirms.

Read full article >

Defense win: Circuit court erred in sua sponte vacating plea after state alleged breach of agreement

State v. Timothy Lester Troon, Jr., 2024AP110-CR, 2/19/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Troon appeals his OWI 5th conviction and an order denying his postconviction motion, in which he argued that the circuit court erred in sua sponte vacating his first plea and judgment of conviction based on a disagreement between the parties about the joint sentencing recommendation that followed the court’s acceptance of his plea. COA agrees, vacating the conviction, reinstate Troon’s first plea and JOC, and remanding for resentencing.

Read full article >

Defense win: COA suppresses evidence from warrantless blood draw, vacates OWI conviction

State v. Brandon J. Taff, 2024AP373, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reverses Taff’s conviction on the basis that his warrantless blood draw was not justified by exigent circumstances, and therefore should have been suppressed.

Read full article >

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.