State v. William A. Wisth, 2016AP1481-CR, 5/24/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After Wisth, acting pro se, and the State picked a jury for his criminal case, the judge instructed the jurors “not to discuss the case with anyone.” The next day before trial, Wisch appeared by the public entrance to the courthouse with a sign and a stack of flyers that, in short, said “don’t trust Judge Malloy or Ozaukee County.” He tried to hand a flyer to a woman walking by, but she shook her head. She did not see what the sign or the flyers said. Turns out she was a juror. Uh oh. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Scot Alan Krueger, 2016AP2438-CR, 5/25/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court erred in holding Krueger failed to make a prima facie showing that he didn’t validly waive the right to counsel in a prior OWI conviction. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Shaun R. Ezrow, 2016AP1611-CR, 5/25/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The cost a business incurred in enhancing its security system after an employee stole money was a proper item of restitution under § 973.20. [continue reading…]
{ }
Bill Tyroler, On Point’s original writer, has kept a low profile since he retired. But lucky for us he can’t contain himself regarding SCOW’s decision in State v. Howes and court of appeals recent certification in State v. Gerald Smith. He says SCOW’s Howes opinion allows defense counsel to argue that exigent circumstances are required for a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist. See Bill’s comments here and here.
{ }
Crawford County v. E.K., 2016AP2063, 5/18/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This case presents multiple SCOW-worthy issues. One is an interesting constitutional dilemma. The County sought to extend E.K.’s commitment and involuntary medication order and, as evidence, offered threatening emails that E.K. had allegedly sent. Defense counsel objected because the emails had not been authenticated. So the County called E.K. to the stand to authenticate them. Defense counsel objected on 5th Amendment grounds. This prompted E.K. to say: “I’ll waive that. Yes, those are my emails.” [continue reading…]
{ }
Former ASPD John Breffeilh just brought a real gem to On Point’s attention. It’s an indexed compilation of hundreds (maybe thousands) of successful ineffective assistance of counsel cases from around the nation. The database runs from 1984 when SCOTUS decided Strickland through the present. It includes Wisconsin cases and covers everything from criminal cases, to sexual predator cases, to involuntary mental commitments.
Skimming this resource can help you (a) avoid missteps and/or (b) find the perfect case to support your client’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Stop what you’re doing and check this out! Thanks, John! 🙂
{ }
State v. Donald G. Verkuylen, 2016AP2364, 5/18/2017, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Verkuylen pled to refusing a blood draw contrary to the motorboat implied consent law, Wis. Stat. § 30.684. He raises several arguments about the statutorily required warnings, but the court of appeals finds them all either meritless or forfeited. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Richard J. Scott, 2017 WI App 40; case activity (including briefs)
Richard Scott seeks to withdraw his pleas to one count of repeated sexual assault of the same child and one count of possessing child pornography. As to the sexual assault count, he was charged under the wrong statute–a prior version. As to the child pornography, he argues that the complaint lacked a factual basis for the plea. The court of appeals rejects both challenges. [continue reading…]
{ }
