Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

L. Restraints on defendant

Winnebago County v. J.M., 4/18/18, 2018 WI 37, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2016AP619, case activity. This opinion will interest lawyers who handle Chapter 51 cases and appellate lawyers of all stripes. It establishes that persons undergoing Chapter 51 mental commitments are entitled  to the effective assistance of counsel and formally adopts the… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Winnebago County v. J.M., 2016AP619, 5/15/17, granting a petition for review of  an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity  Issues: Whether the subject of a §51.20(1)(a) extension of involuntary commitment and medication order has a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel where his lawyer fails to object to, prevent the admission of, or request… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Tony Phillip Rogers, 2015AP921-CR, 4/12/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Though the complainant in Rogers’s child sexual assault prosecution made statements to her mother about “hearing voices” and needing mental health assistance, trial counsel was not deficient for failing to move for an in camera review of her… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Scott E. Ziegler, 2012 WI 73, on certification; case activity Interfering with Child Custody, § 948.31(2) – Elements Language in State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis. 2d 393, 742 N.W.2d 332, that one method of violating § 948.31(2) (interference with child custody) requires the parent’s “initial permission” to take child, is now “withdrawn”: ¶52  Pursuant to the plain… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Stun Belt – “Standing Order”

State v. Allen K. Umentum, 2011AP2622-CR. District 3, 5/1/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Umentum: Roberta A. Heckes; case activity Under a local, Brown County “standing order,” all in-custody defendants appearing at jury trial were required, without particularized demonstration of need, to wear a non-visible stun belt. The courthouse had no screening checkpoints… Read More

{ 0 comments }

seventh circuit decision Habeas – Knowing Use of False Testimony (“Napue”)  Due process prohibits knowing prosecutorial use of false testimony, Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). However, the prosecutor’s exploitation of Bland’s incorrect testimony on a potentially important point (the date his gun was confiscated) doesn’t support habeas relief on a Napue-type theory. Napue and Giglio hold… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Shackling – Presence of Guards

State v. Jeffrey T. Turner, 2011AP413-CR, District 4, 11/3/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Turner: Cody Wagner; case activity The trial court erred in failing to make a sua sponte inquiry into necessity for shackling Turner during his jury trial. Although the court of appeals recently held that a trial court has… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jason L. Miller, 2011 WI App 34; for Miller: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Miller BiC; State Resp.; Reply If the stun belt (or other restraint) isn’t visible to the jury, the trial court need not consider its necessity before requiring that the defendant wear it during trial. “Because there is… Read More

{ 0 comments }