by admin
on August 14, 2021
State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2021 WI App 55; Review granted 1/11/22; affirmed 2/21/23; case activity (including briefs)
This is the appeal from Thomas’s second conviction at trial for the false imprisonment, sexual assault and murder of his wife. (The first conviction was ultimately undone by the Seventh Circuit, which held that his counsel had been ineffective for failing to seek out certain expert testimony.) Thomas raises three issues. He claims he was convicted of the sexual assault count in violation of the corroboration rule, because the only evidence it occurred was his own confession. He also says all three convictions were obtained in violation of his right to confrontation, as the state introduced a hearsay lab report concerning DNA evidence during cross-examination of his expert. And he argues one of the jurors was objectively biased because she at least believed she was a cousin of one state’s witness. The court rejects all three claims. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 14, 2021
State v. X.S., 2021AP419, 7/20/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Xander (a pseudonym) shot several people in a well-known incident at the Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa. The juvenile court concluded that it was the right forum for the case and denied the state’s motion to waive the matter into adult criminal court under WIS. STAT. § 938.18(5). The court of appeals reverses. This is a one-judge decision and so it makes no binding law. What it does instead is pay brief lip service to the deference it owes the lower court’s discretionary call before going on to recite–with a prosecutorial tenor–its own view of how that discretion ought to have been exercised. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 12, 2021
State v. M.C., 2021AP301, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decsion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in deciding to waive M.C. into adult court on a sexual assault charge, so the waiver is reversed and the case remanded for the circuit court to exercise its discretion properly. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 12, 2021
State v. M.T.W., 2021AP420-FT, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Information that goes to a witness’s character for truthfulness doesn’t meet the standard under § 48.46(1) for newly discovered evidence that warrants a new trial. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 12, 2021
Our, shall we say, “mature” readers will no doubt recollect this case from benighted 1970s, while our younger readers may be hearing about it for the first time. It’s the infamous Bronfman kidnapping saga, with a new twist provided by the self-published memoir of the recently-deceased lawyer for Byrne, one of the two co-defendants. It’s described in this long-form article in the New York Times.
For more on the suppression of Byrne’s statement to the FBI, which the article mentions in passing, see People v. Lynch, 61 A.D.2d 723 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978). One thing the article mentions not at all, but which inquiring minds might like to know: What did the lawyer for Lynch, the other defendant, think about the truth of his client’s defense?
{ }
by admin
on August 12, 2021
St. Croix County v. Kelly M. Lagerstrom, 2019AP928, District 3, 8/10/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
As in State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, 356 Wis. 2d 796, 854 N.W.2d 687, retrograde extrapolation testimony from a toxicologist was admissible as evidence of Lagerstrom’s possible blood alcohol content around the time the state alleged he drove his car into a ditch. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 12, 2021
Douglas County DHHS v. D.B., 2020AP982, District 3, 8/10/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.B. claims trial counsel at his TPR trial was ineffective for: (1) failing to object to the application to his case of the amended version of the statute governing continuing CHIPS grounds; (2) failing to introduce evidence about additional visits between D.B. and his son; and (3) failing to object to testimony about his son’s negative reactions to him during certain visits. The court of appeals rejects the claims. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 9, 2021
Jackson County v. T.A.L., 2021AP499, District 4, 8/5/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.A.L.’s transfer from outpatient status to a locked inpatient unit based on his medical needs didn’t violate the requirements of § 51.35. [continue reading…]
{ }
