State v. Daniel Arends, 2010 WI 46, affirming as modified, 2008 WI App 184; for Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky Procedure clarified for handling discharge petitions under recently amended § 908.09 : ¶3 We conclude that § 980.09 requires the circuit court to follow a two-step process in determining whether to hold a discharge hearing. ¶4 Under… Read more
H. Ch. 980, SVPs
U.S. v. Comstock, USSC No. 08-1224, 5/17/10 The federal scheme for detaining the equivalent of ch. 980 sexually violent persons beyond release date from federal prison, 18 U.S.C. § 1848, is a valid exercise of Congressional authority under the Necessary and Proper clause. In reaching this conclusion, the Court “assume(s), but we do not decide… Read more
court of appeals decision; pro se; Resp. Br. Appellate Procedure – Record Document not Included on Appeal ¶8 n.7: To any extent that it is relevant to our analysis, we assume that the missing transcript of the March 23, 2009 hearing on the merits supports the circuit court’s ruling. See Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d… Read more
State v. Tory L. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60; for Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br. SVP – Supervised Release Hearing: Burden of Proof on Petitioner Under revisions to § 980.08 wrought by 2005 Wis. Act 434 (eff. date 8/1/06), the burden of proof has been shifted from the… Read more
7th circuit court of appeals decision; habeas review of: Wis court of appeals decision, 03AP3252 Habeas – Supplement Record … Although we generally decline to supplement the record on appeal with materials not before the district court, we have not applied this position categorically. See, e.g., Ruvalcaba v. Chandler, 416 F.3d 555, 562 n.2 (7th Cir. 2005) (in habeas… Read more
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Oliver: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br. SVP – Evidence 1. Unobjected-to testimony by a state evaluator that DHS psychologists are more “conservative” in their conclusions than other SVP experts did not “cloud” the issue and therefore did not support… Read more
court of appeals decision; for Kaminski:Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate SVP: Misconduct Evidence, § 904.04(2), Reliance on by Expert SVP expert may rely on the respondent’s unproven prior misconduct in deriving his or her opinion. The § 904.04(2) “preliminary relevance” requirement, State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 59-61, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999); State… Read more
State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175 For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: “Infrequent references to annual re-evaluation” were not “sufficiently egregious to diminish the jury’s sense of responsibility for its verdict,” ¶¶20-24… Read more
