court of appeals decision; for Carter: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br. Ex Parte Judicial Questioning, Pretrial Proceeding Pretrial judicial questioning of a witness at return of a bench warrant worked deprivation of the defendant’s rights to counsel and presence at trial when the witness was subsequently impeached with statements she… Read more
23. Judge
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); Resp Br; Reply Impartial Tribunal Various rulings did not evince judicial bias, even if some displayed “irritation or impatience”; moreover, judicial rulings alone almost never establish judicial partiality… Read more
supreme court “decision” (court splits 3-3); for Allen: Robert R. Henak Recusal – Individual Supreme Court Justice – Reviewability The question of whether a claim of bias against one Justice (Gableman) is reviewable by the full court fails to yield a majority. The court splits 3-3 (Justice Gableman not participating), in a total of 5… Read more
Memorandum Decision (per Roggensack, J.) Disqualification, § 757.19(2)(e) Justice Roggensack isn’t disqualified under § 757.19(2)(e) from participating in Henley’s pending appeal, even though as a court of appeals judge she decided the separate appeal of Henley’s jointly tried codefendant Adams. ¶23 … I conclude that disqualification/recusal is directed under Wis. Stat. § 757.19(2)(e) only when the same defendant in… Read more
State v. Brian K. Goodson, 2009 WI App 107 For Goodson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶9 Objective bias can exist in two situations. The first is where there is the appearance of bias, Gudgeon, 295 Wis. 2d 189, ¶¶23-24. “[T]he appearance of bias offends constitutional due process principles whenever a reasonable person—taking into… Read more
Recusal – Judicial Bias – Prejudgment of Issue: Effectuated Threat to Impose Maximum upon Revocation
State v. Brian K. Goodson, 2009 WI App 107 For Goodson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The reconfinement judge should have recused himself, given that at original disposition he threatened to impose the maximum if the defendant was returned to court on revocation; State v. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, deemed controlling: ¶12 The same… Read more
State v. William Allen Wisth, 2009 WI App 53, PFR filed 4/29/09 For Wisth: Jeremy Perri, SPD, MilwaukeeAppellate Issue/Holding: Defendant not entitled to request substitution of judge assigned to sentencing following revocation; § 971.20(5) is limited to pre-guilt phases: ¶14 We conclude that the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. § 971.20(5) is that substitution is permitted only prior… Read more
State ex rel. Adrian T. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, affirmed, 2008 WI 67, ¶48 n. 7 (reconsideration denied, 2008 WI 118) Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4: We are disturbed by Reddin’s presumption to give, and Judge Murray’s acquiescence to receive, Reddin’s ex parte advice about the scope of Hipp’s ability to have issued subpoenas for the… Read more
