State v. Jesse N. Schwartz, 2013AP1868-CR, District 2, 7/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement didn’t justify the search of Schwartz’s home because police did not have a reasonable basis to believe another individual was in the home at the time of the search.
State v. Kenneth L. Hare, Jr., 2013AP1675-CR, 7/29/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
In this case, the court of appeals rejected Hare’s contentions that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the law of self-defense and that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a separate IAC claim his trial lawyer’s failure to request a jury instruction on the law of theft.
State v. Carlos Cummings and State v. Adrean L. Smith, 2014 WI 88, 7/24/14, affirming per curiam court of appeals decisions in 2011AP1653-CR & 2012AP520-CR, majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; concurrence/dissent by Justice Prosser (joined by Justice Bradley); dissent by Chief Justice Abrahamson; case activity for Cummings and Smith
These cases address whether two Mirandized suspects unequivocally invoked their respective rights to remain silent, or cut off questioning, during police interrogations. Citing State v. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242 the majority held that both defendants seem to have meant something other than what they literally said. Their attempts to cut off questioning were “equivocal” and thus their statements need not be suppressed.
State v. Hershel R. Stanley, 2014 WI App 89; case activity
Even if DOC was required to release Stanley from prison on his presumptive mandatory release date instead of holding him to his maximum discharge date, the ch. 980 petition filed against him before his discharge date was timely because § 980.02(1m) permits filing a ch. 980 petition before a person is released or discharged from his sentence.
State v. Matthew D. Campbell, 2011AP1445-CR, District 4, 7/24/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
After a victim admitted during cross-examination that she lied under oath during direct examination, the trial court advised the victim of her right against self-incrimination. (¶3-4). She invoked that right and was given immunity under §§ 972.08 and 972.085. (¶4). Cross-examination resumed, yielding additional admissions by the victim that she lied or gave inconsistent statements. (¶¶5-6). Under these circumstances, trial counsel was not ineffective for not moving to strike the victim’s direct examination testimony.
State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2014 WI 89, 7/24/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity
State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87, 7/24/14, affirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity
In two decisions consisting of 8 separate opinions spread out across almost 200 pages, the supreme court is unable to muster a majority on the central issue presented: Whether cell phone location tracking is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Instead, in both cases a majority assumes without deciding that cell phone tracking is a search and then affirms the convictions, although on different grounds. If you’re looking only for the holdings, here they are: In Tate, a majority holds that the circuit court’s “order” that a cell phone service provide information about the cell phone location was reasonable because it met the requirements for a search warrant. In Subdiaz-Osorio, a majority holds that the warrantless acquisition of the cell phone location data was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. If you’re looking for more information, read on.
State v. Tramell Starks, 2013 WI 69, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, case activity; reconsideration denied 7/24/14, concurring opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson
Taking a cue from Napolean Bonaparte, the Wisconsin Supreme Court just denied two, year-old reconsideration motions outlining many serious mistakes in the Starks majority opinion (written by Justice Gableman). No, that statement is not just sour grapes. The Attorney General also asked for reconsideration along the same lines as the defense. The Chief Justice took the extraordinary step of attaching both motions to her concurrence.
State v. Andres Romero-Georgana, 2014 WI 83, 7/23/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; majority opinion by Justice Prosser, dissenting opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity
Oliver Wendell Holmes said “hard cases make bad law.” This decision proves that simple cases can too. If you thought winning a §974.06 postconviction motion or a § 971.08(2) motion for plea withdrawal due to the trial court’s failure to give deportation warnings was tough before, wait until you read this decision. [continue reading…]
