State v. J.C., 2024AP17, 7/30/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Jacob” appealed from an order granting the state’s waiver petition on charges of first-degree reckless injury, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and possession of a dangerous weapon. The COA affirms.
State v. Kruckenberg Anderson, 2023AP396-CR, 7/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
The tragic death of a newborn baby in the bucolic countryside of southwest Wisconsin prompted aggressive interrogation techniques by law enforcement that the Court of Appeals considered coercive in light of the suspect’s age of 16. But the court found that a reasonable 16-year old would have felt free to leave when the police told him repeatedly he was not under arrest and did not have to answer questions; law enforcement therefore did not have to advise the suspect of his Miranda rights. The COA affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order suppressing the defendant’s statements.
[continue reading…]
Dane County v. J.B., 2024AP985, 7/25/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Because J.B.’s request that COA reweigh the dispositional factors in her favor is precluded by governing case law, COA affirms.
[continue reading…]
Brown County v. J.D.T., 2023AP2339, 7/23/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.D.T. challenges the his commitment under ch. 51 (second and third standards). The COA concludes that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the third standard, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., and therefore does not address the second standard. [continue reading…]
In the Wisconsin Lawyer, Retired Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Christopher R. Foley has an insightful piece titled “Left in the Dark: State v. A.G. & Burden of Proof in Involuntary TPR Dispositional Hearings.” The article contains an interesting analysis of the current state of the law, along with some arguments Judge Foley believes have been missing from prior litigation. He also recognizes that these legal developments have been spurred by litigation from public defenders, who he describes as “[n]ever lacking for innovative arguments in zealously advocating for their clients.”
Meanwhile, over at the Court of Appeals, the annual report for 2023 has just been released. The document compiles statistics on the number and type of cases handled by the Court and also includes the latest stats on how long it takes for a case to reach decision–a handy resource if you are trying to advise a client on how long they might realistically be waiting for resolution in a given case.
Karl W. Nichols v. Lance Wiersma, No. 22-3059, 7/16/24
In a complicated case that contains many harsh lessons about the standards applicable to habeas petitions, the Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief as the exculpatory value of unpreserved evidence was not “apparent.”
[continue reading…]
In addition to the SCOTUS cases to which we devoted individual posts (Smith v. Arizona, Erlinger v. U.S., U.S. v. Rahimi, Garland v. Cargill), below is a summary of criminal or criminal-adjacent cases decided by SCOTUS in the 2023-24 term that we consider of interest to criminal practice in Wisconsin state courts.
State v. Jayden Adams, 2023AP218-CR, 7/23/24, District 1 (recommended for publication); case activity
Adams appealed a nonfinal order denying his motion for discovery prior to his Wis. Stat. § 970.032(1) preliminary examination and his motion for reverse waiver to juvenile court. Despite holding that juvenile defendants have a limited right to discovery before a prelim under State v. Klesser, 2010 WI 88, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144, the COA concludes that Adams was not entitled to the discovery he requested in this case. The COA also concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the reverse waiver.
