≡ Menu

H. Presence of litigant

State v. Calvin Jerome Pirtle, 2011 WI App 89(recommended for publication); for Pirtle: Christopher J. Cherella; case activity Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph Pirtle’s failure to object to the police presence allowed them to act on the co-tenant’s consent to a warrantless search under Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006): ¶15      In… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Jefferson County v. Joseph S., 2010 WI App 160 (recommended for publication); for Joseph S.: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Failure of trial court to warn guardianship respondent of possibility of removal from courtroom for disruptive behavior prior to ordering his removal deprived court of competency to proceed. ¶5        A determination that a person “is… Read more

{ 0 comments }

 State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2006 WI 77, reversing 2005 WI App 238 For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel Issue/Holding: ¶36      The parties agree with the court of appeals that the circuit court’s communications with the jury outside the presence of the defendant is error, violating the defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to be present.  We… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Defendant’s Presence at Postconviction Hearing

State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02 For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser Issue/Hearing: The defendant’s right to personal presence at a postconviction evidentiary hearing hinges on the existence of substantial issues of fact in which the defendant participated. Here, there was a substantial dispute, but it related to a “side issue,”… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court’s response to a jury request to see a written report and a transcript of a witness’s testimony — that these items were “not available” — without first seeking defense input was error. Holding: The… 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 }
RSS