Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Published 2005

Clay Teasdale v. Marinette County Child Support Agency, 2009 WI App 152 Issue/Holding: Case specialist’s request to judge via affidavit and proposed order for remedial-contempt commitment was in fact if not form a “motion” and “was improper on numerous grounds”: it violated the §802.05(1) requirement that aside from pro se litigation motions must be signed by… Read More

{ 0 comments }

TPR – Self-Representation – Standards

Dane County DHS v. Susan P.S., 2006 WI App 100, PFR filed 5/15/06 (published) Issue/Holding1: The same “self-representation competency standards developed in … criminal cases” applies to TPRs, ¶¶9-16. Standards summarized, ¶¶17-23. Though much of this recitation is fairly abstract, the following embellishment of Pickens v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 549, 292 N.W.2d 601 (1980) may be… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Eric D. Cooks, 2006 WI App 262 For Cooks: Joseph E. Redding Issue/Holding: ¶50      Cooks, as the trial court found, provided Barth with the names of alibi witnesses and Barth had Cooks testify to his alibi. However, Barth failed to investigate the potential alibi witnesses and argue Cooks’ alibi to the jury. Barth… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Damian Darnell Washington, 2005 WI App 123 For Washington: Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13      In United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980), the Supreme Court stated that “[w]e adhere to the view that a person is ‘seized’ only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264 Issue Whether the State sufficiently proved grounds to support TPR such that the court should change the jury’s special verdict to the contrary. Holding: “Because the record contains contradictory evidence and a key witness did not testify, and because it is possible the jury did not believe… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue/Holding: ¶2        Birth-parents “have constitutionally protected rights to raise their children as they see fit, and these rights may only be circumscribed if the government proves that there is a ‘powerful countervailing interest.’” Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 228 Wis. 2d 658, 661, 599 N.W.2d 90, 92… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue: Whether the right of a parent imprisoned  in the federal system to “meaningfully participate” in a TPR proceeding was violated when he was not physically produced in court but, instead, was limited to telephonic participation. Holding: Where various mechanisms could have been utilized to produce the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Daniel D. King, 2005WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: The confrontation clause requires that the hearsay declarant be unavailable to testify at trial “and, critically, that the State make a ‘good-faith effort’ to produce the declarant at trial,” ¶6. The trial court erred in determining that the declarant was truly… Read More

{ 0 comments }