Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

1. Defendant at voire dire

State v. Jeffrey P. Lepsch, 2017 WI 27, 3/31/17, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion, case activity (including briefs) This appeal primarily concerns whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (a) object to the seating of biased jurors, and (b) ensure that the trial court properly administered the oath to the venire panel… Read More

{ 0 comments }

SCOW to review juror bias issues

State v. Jeffrey P. Lepsch, 2015AP2813-CR, petition for review granted 5/11/16; case activity (including briefs) Issues (composed by On Point) Were one or more jurors at Lepsch’s trial objectively or subjectively biased because they did not provide “unequivocal assurances” that they could set aside prior beliefs (about, e.g., the guilt of the defendant and the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Alexander, 2013 WI 70, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2011AP394-CR; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; concurrences by Justice Crooks (joined by Chief Justice Abrahmason and Justice Bradley), Justice Ziegler, and separately by Chief Justice Abrahamson. This decision is alarming.  During Alexander’s 1st-degree intentional homicide trial, concerns surfaced about whether… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Defendant’s Presence — Jury Selection

State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227 For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court erred in questioning prospective jurors outside the presence of defendant and counsel, on “hardship and infirmity requests” not to serve. Holding: Questioning jurors about undue hardships “does not implicate the purposes of voir… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Right to Be Present – Voir Dire

State v. George S. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236 For Tulley: Patrick M. Donnelly Issue: Whether excluding defendant and his attorney from in camera voir dire of several jurors was reversible error. Holding: A defendant has both constitutional and statutory rights to be present, with assistance of counsel, at voir dire, and the trial court therefore erred… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Defendant’s Presence — jury selection.

State v. Larry D. Harris, 229 Wis.2d 832, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999). For Harris: William S. Coleman, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate. Issue: Whether defendant’s rights to presence and counsel were violated by their absence from at least part of voir dire. Holding: Defendant has both a nonwaivable statutory right to presence, and also a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Defendant’s presence — dismissal of juror for cause — waiver.

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999). For Edmunds: Dean A. Strang. Holding: Edmunds is held to have waived her right to be present when the parties and the court discussed dismissal of a juror for cause. The dismissal is upheld, where the juror conveyed opinions about… Read More

{ 0 comments }