≡ Menu

13. Due Process

State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148 For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin Issue/Holding: ¶58. Carprue contends that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial because Judge Schellinger was not impartial. His evidence consists of the judge’s actions in calling and questioning Morrow and in questioning Carprue.¶59. “A fair… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue:Whether the defendant’s explicit waiver of his right to testify was conditional (on the outcome of two defense witnesses) such that another colloquy should have been conducted; or, if the waiver is deemed binding, whether the trial court nonetheless erroneously… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded on other grounds for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590); subsequent decision on remand, Miranda issue: State v. Knapp (II), 2005 WI 127 For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: The defendant may obtain admission of evidence implicating other… Read more

{ 1 comment }

State v. Alan R. Radke, 2003 WI 7, affirming 2002 WI App 146 For Radke: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶5. The precise question raised, therefore, is whether the “two strikes” law violates the Due Process Clause of either the United States or Wisconsin Constitution because it requires a greater penalty to be imposed on… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. William J. Church (II), 2003 WI 74, reversing 2002 WI App 212, 257 Wis. 2d 442, 650 N.W.2d 873; earlier history: State v. William J. Church, 223 Wis.2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), petition for review dismissed as improvidently granted, 2000 WI 90 For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether an increase in sentence… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: A defendant has a “fundamental” constitutional right to testify on his or her own behalf. ¶39. ¶43. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a criminal defendant is waiving his or her right to testify, a circuit court should… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2003 WI App 168, affirmed, 2004 WI 70, ¶¶42-47 For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella Amici: Keith A. Findley, John T. Savee, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL Issue/Holding: The defendant’s right to testify does not include a right to testify falsely, Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986): ¶37. From Nix, we derive five principles that… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Due Process – Scienter, § 948.12

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03 For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶32. Schaefer claims that by allowing conviction for possession of child pornography when a defendant “reasonably should know” that the child depicted is under eighteen years of age, Wis. Stat. § 948.12 omits a scienter… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS