Follow Us

Facebooktwitter
≡ Menu

State v. Percy Antione Robinson, 2020AP1728-CR, certification granted 5/18/22; case activity (including briefs)

Question presented:

The 4th Amendment requires that a judicial officer determine probable within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56 (1991). Milwaukee County complies with this mandate by having the judicial officer review a sworn affidavit from law enforcement and set initial bail. This procedure does not require the accused to appear in person. The judicial officer simply conducts a paper review and completes a CR-215 form. Does this procedure trigger the accused’s right to counsel?

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Garland Dean Barnes, 202AP226-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 4/15/22; case activity (including briefs)

Questions Presented:

Can a defendant open the door to testimonial hearsay violating his confrontation rights, and which was excluded based on an egregious discovery violation, by challenging the quality of the police investigation?

Can the claim that a non-testifying officer witnessed the defendant commit the crime be admitted over hearsay objections under the theory that it is admissible to show the course of investigation, not for the truth of the matter asserted?

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Charles W. Richey, petition to review a per curiam opinion granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs)

Question presented:

Whether, at the time of the stop, Officer Meier only had a generalized hunch that Richey’s motorcycle may have been the one that committed a traffic violation.

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2021AP21-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs and PFR)

Issue presented (composed by On Point based on the state’s PFR)

Was the state’s breach of its plea agreement with Nietzold remedied by the prosecutor’s withdrawal of the erroneous recommendation and restatement of the correct recommendation? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman, 202AP226-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 4/13/22; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the State’s petition for review)

1. In cases involving credibility contests between a complaining witness (here, S.S.) and the defendant (Hineman), to what extent can a reviewing court reweigh the witnesses’ credibility in assessing whether, based on omitted evidence, there was a reasonable likelihood of a different result under the Brady materiality or Strickland prejudice standards?

2. The court of appeals also reached an abandoned Shiffra/Green issue and ordered in camera review of S.S.’s therapy files from his private therapist because the therapist acted as a mandatory reporter. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

State v. Daimon Von Jackson, Jr., 2019AP2383, petition for review of granted 3/21/22;  case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from Von Jackson’s PFR):

1.    Whether a defendant is prejudiced when trial counsel does not communicate with him before his homicide trial.

2.    Whether a defendant should be allowed to obtain new counsel when his current counsel is deficient.

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Whether Wis. Stat. § 301.45(5)(b)1, which mandates lifetime sex-offender registration where a person has been convicted of a sex offense “on 2 or more separate occasions,” applies when a person’s only eligible convictions are entered on multiple guilty pleas in the same case. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

SCOW to address validity of Marsy’s law

Wisconsin Justice Initiative v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2020AP2003, certification granted 2/17/22; case activity

In 2020, Wisconsin voters ratified Marsy’s law, a proposed amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution, which significantly expanded the rights of crime victims often at the expense of defendants’ rights. The Dane County Circuit Court declared the law invalid due to defects in the ballot question presented to voters.  The Wisconsin Election Commission appealed. On certification by the court of appeals, SCOW has agreed to review the matter. The issues are set forth in the certification.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }