Confrontation
State v. Hoover, 98-3271-CR
II.	MR. HOOVER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION AND EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Miller, 98-3546-CR
	THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY RESTRICTED THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF CREGO, THEREBY DENYING MILLER HIS RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION AND A FAIR TRIAL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Veach, 98-2387-CR
I.	THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MR. VEACH'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL AND CONFRONTATION WHEN, OVER OBJECTION, IT ADMITTED OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE, MUCH OF WHICH WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, THAT SOME ELEVEN YEARS EARLIER HE ENGAGED IN INCEST WITH HIS DAUGHTER.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Glenn, 00-0917-CR
II.	MR. GLENN WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ELICITED TESTIMONY INDICATING KAELA KVALO SAID SHE WAS SCARED AS SHE PASSED NEAR MR. GLENN IN THE COURTROOM, BUT KAELA DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONING BY DEFENSE COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Jeffrey Huck, 00-0016-CR
I.	THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERRORS IN DENYING HUCK ACCESS TO VARIOUS PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL WORK RECORDS OF JESSICA, WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF DENYING HUCK AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSER, AND DENYING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON HIS OWN BEHALF.
II.	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW HUCK TO CONFRONT HIS ACCUSER WITH HIGHLY RELEVANT IMPEACH-MENT MATERIAL, AND THEREBY VIOLATED HUCK'S CONSTITU-TIONAL RIGHTS TO DEFEND HIMSELF AND CONFRONT HIS ACCUSER.
III.	THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THIS CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT. § 752.35, BECAUSE THE CASE WAS NOT FULLY OR FAIRLY TRIED.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Double Jeopardy
State v. Anderson, 96-0087-CR, 96-0088-CR, 219 Wis. 2d 739 (1998)
II.	A DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA DOES NOT WAIVE A DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAIM.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Perkins, 99-2585-CR
I.	MR. PERKINS' CONVICTIONS FOR TWO COUNTS OF SECOND-DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD VIOLATE THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROTECTION AGAINST MULTIPLE PUNISHMENTS FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, REQUIRING THIS COURT TO REVERSE ONE OF HIS TWO CONVICTIONS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Tkacz, 97-0974-CR
I.	THE EVIDENCE ON THE HOMICIDE CHARGE WAS INSUFFICIENT.
II.	CONVICTIONS FOR BOTH CHARGES CONSTITUTED DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Trawitzki, 99-2234-CR
I.	THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION ENTERED ON NINE COUNTS OF THEFT AND FOUR COUNTS OF CONCEALING STOLEN PROPERTY MUST BE VACATED, BECAUSE THE IMPOSITION OF SEPARATE PENALTIES FOR EACH WEAPON STOLEN OR CONCEALED IN A SINGLE INCIDENT VIOLATES THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROHIBITION AGAINST MULTIPLE CHARGES.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Willett, 99-2671-CR
	IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE FOR THE COURT TO INCREASE A VALID LEGAL SENTENCE AFTER THE DEFENDANT BEGINS SERVING THAT SENTENCE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. James Terry II, 00-0678
III.	MR. TERRY WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE IN VIOLATION OF HIS STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Pamela Smith-Herzog, 01-0121-CR
I.	THE STATE'S APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT IS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND IS THEREFORE BARRED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSES OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
II.	THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN CONSTRUING THE JURY'S INTENT AND THEN DISMISSING THE CHARGE INSTEAD OF APPLYING THE LAW CONCERNING INCONSISTENT CIVIL VERDICTS AND ORDERING A RETRIAL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Due Process
State v. Burns, 96-3615-CR, 226 Wis. 2d 762 (1999)
	THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WERE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WISCONSIN CONSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS THE STAUTES OF THIS STATE BECAUSE HE NEVER PERSONALLY ENTERED A GUILTY OR NO CONTEST PLEA TO THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Engevold, 98-0279-CR
I.	THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WAS VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS ARBITRARILY DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO FIVE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES.
II.	THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT WHEN MR. ENGEVOLD WAS NOT GIVEN THE FULL NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES MANDATED BY STATUTE WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State Of Wisconsin v. Andrew Davis, 99-2531-CR and 99-2532-CR
	THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED MR. DAVIS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL WHEN IT PERMITTED THE STATE TO INTRODUCE THE OTHER WRONGS EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF A GUN, UNRELATED TO THE CHARGED OFFENSES, AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Mathew M. Engevold, 98-0279-CR
I.	THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WAS VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS ARBITRARILY DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO FIVE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State ex rel. Leroy Reisch v . David H. Schwarz, Administrator, Division of Hearings and Appeals, 00-0696
II.	APPLICATION OF THE PRISONER LITIGATION REFORM ACT TO PETITIONER DENIES SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 00-2830-CR
I.	MR. ST. GEORGE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL, WHEN THE DEFENSE WAS PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SEXUAL CONTACT INVOLVING THE CHILD COMPLAINANT AND ANOTHER CHILD OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE CHILD'S ACCUSATION OF SEXUAL CONTACT AGAINST MR. ST. GEORGE.
II.	MR. ST. GEORGE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND HIS RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE WHEN THE TRIAL COURT EXCLUDED PROFFERED TESTIMONY FROM DEFENSE EXPERT DR. DONALD STONEFELD.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Equal Protection
In the Interest of Ryan L., a Person Under the Age of 17: State v. Ryan L., 97-1109, 220 Wis. 2d 360 (1998)
I.	RYAN D.L. WAS DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS BY THE REQUIREMENT IN CHAPTER 938 THAT FACT FINDING MUST BE BY THE TRIAL COURT, WHILE JUVENILES AND ADULTS SUBJECT TO INVOLUNTARY CON-FINEMENT, TREATMENT AND CARE UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE AND CHAPTERS 48, 51, 55 AND 980 ARE ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL.
II.	RYAN D.L. WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL UNDER ART. I, SEC. 7, OF THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE NEW JUVENILE JUSTICE CODE IS, IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT, A CRIMINAL CODE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Wolter, 99-2421-CR
	THE STATUTE IN QUESTION VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WISCONSIN CONSTITUTIONS BECAUSE IT ARBITRARILY AND IRRATIONALLY PROHIBITS PROBATION FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF OPERATING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State ex rel. Leroy Reisch v . David H. Schwarz, Administrator, Division of Hearings and Appeals, 00-0696
I.	APPLICATION OF THE PRISONER LITIGATION REFORM ACT TO PETITIONER VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Ex Post Facto
(No Entries)
First Amendment
In the Interest of Douglas D.,A Person under the Age of 17: State v. Douglas D., 99-1767-FT, __ Wis.2d __ ( )
I.	ADJUDICATING DOUGLAS DELINQUENT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF HIS CREATIVE WRITING ASSIGNMENT, VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.
	Court of Appeals Brief      Supreme Court Brief      Go To Decision
In the Interest of Douglas D., a Person Under the Age of 17: State v. Douglas D., 99-1767-FT
I.	DOUG'S DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION, BASED ON THE CONTENT OF HIS CREATIVE WRITING ASSIGNMENT, VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.
	Court of Appeals Brief      Supreme Court Brief      Go To Decision
State v. Weidner, 99-1334-CR
	THE STATUTE WHICH PROSCRIBES THE TRANSFER OF HARMFUL MATERIAL TO CHILDREN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THOSE TRANSFERS MADE VIA THE INTERNET, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATE TO PROVE THE ACTOR'S KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM THE MATERIAL WAS TRANSFERRED WAS A CHILD.
	Court of Appeals Brief              Supreme Court Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Murle E. Perkins, III, 99-1924-CR, __ Wis.2d __ ( )
I.	A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTION FOR THE OFFENSE OF THREAT TO A JUDGE, WIS. J.I.-CRIMINAL: NO. 1240, FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DEFINE THE ELEMENT OF A "THREAT" CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Carroll, 00-1064-CR (supplemental)
	THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THAT CONDUCT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS NOT BEING A TRUE THREAT WAS ACTIONABLE AS AN ELEMENT OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Self Incrimination
State v. Strong, 98-0248-CR, ___ Wis. 2d ___ ( )
I.	WHITTY EVIDENCE ON AN UNTRIED 12-YEAR-OLD INCIDENT SHOULD NOT BE PRESENTED TO AND CONSIDERED BY A JURY DECIDING THE CHARGED OFFENSE WHEREBY THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, A FAIR TRIAL AND TO MAKE A DEFENSE ARE INFRINGED.
	Court of Appeals Brief              Supreme Court Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Strong, 98-0248-CR
III.	DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE AVAILABLE CHALLENGES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DILEMA OF DEFENDANT HAVING TO GIVE UP HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE CHARGED CASE TO PRESERVE IT IN THE CASE THE STATE THREATENED TO CHARGE BASED ON THE 1983 INCIDENT.
	Court of Appeals Brief              Supreme Court Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Webster, 99-0286-CR
	DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING WHEN THE PRESIDING JUDGE STRUCK THE ENTIRE TESTIMONY OF A VITAL DEFENSE WITNESS BECAUSE THE WITNESS ASSERTED A FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO A SINGLE CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTION ABOUT PURCHASING DRUGS FROM THE ACCUSED.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Glenn, 00-0917-CR
I.	THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED MR. GLENN'S STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WHEN IT ELICITED TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE WALL CONCERNING MR. GLENN'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO HER ATTEMPTS TO SPEAK WITH HIM.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Donald J. Lallaman, 00-0529-CR
III.	THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED LALLAMAN'S RIGHT OF SILENCE GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND WISCONSIN CONSTITUTIONS WHEN IT ALLOWED THE PROSECUTOR TO IMPEACH HIM WITH HIS SILENCE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Other
State v. Byrge, 97-3217-CR, __ Wis. 2d __ ( )
I.	A TRIAL COURT'S DECISION ON COMPETENCY TO PROCEED IS A DECISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL FACT, AND SHOULD BE REVIEWED DE NOVO BY THE APPELLATE COURTS. THE DEFERENTIAL STANDARD OF REVIEW ADOPTED IN STATE V. GARFOOT, 207 WIS. 2D 214, 558 N.W.2D 626 (1997), IS IN ERROR, AND SHOULD BE REVERSED.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision