Disorderly Conduct
In the Interest of Douglas D.,A Person under the Age of 17: State v. Douglas D., 99-1767-FT, __ Wis.2d __ ( )
II.	WISCONSIN'S DISORDERLY CONDUCT LAW DOES NOT CRIMINALIZE THE CONTENT OF A SCHOOL CREATIVE WRITING ASSIGNMENT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
In the Interest of Douglas D., a Person Under the Age of 17: State v. Douglas D., 99-1767-FT
II.	WISCONSIN'S DISORDERLY CONDUCT LAW CANNOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSTRUED TO CRIMINALIZE THE CONTENT OF DOUG'S WRITTEN SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. James A. Carroll, 00-1064-CR
I.	WISCONSIN'S DISORDERLY CONDUCT STATUTE DOES NOT CRIMINALIZE A STATEMENT MADE DURING A TELEPHONE CALL INITIATED BY THE DEFENDANT'S PHYSICIAN.
II.	WISCONSIN STATUTE § 947.01 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT FOR RESPONDING BY TELEPHONE TO HIS PHYSICIAN ABOUT HIS FEELINGS OF POSSIBLY KILLING HIMSELF OR OTHERS AS THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS ARE NOT TRUE THREATS AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
III.	A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, REAL ISSUE NOT FULLY TRIED, BECAUSE THE PATTERN DISORDERLY CONDUCT JURY INSTRUCTION GIVEN FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN THAT THE CHARGED OFFENSE REQUIRED A TRUE THREAT TO BE ACTIONABLE.
	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
Endangering Safety
State v. Pollard, III, 99-1487-CR
I.	MR. POLLARD WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IMPEDED THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.
II.	A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE ERROR IN THE BRIDGING INSTRUCTION PREVENTED A FULL AND FAIR TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF MR. POLLARD'S GUILT OF FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Harassment
(No Entries)
Other
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. Adam S. Gonzales, Case No. 01-0224-CR
I.	THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CREATING A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE BROAD STATUTORY RESTRICTION ON CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ART. I, § 25 EFFECTIVELY REPEALED WIS. STAT. § 941.23.
II.	BECAUSE THE SWEEPING STATUTORY PROHIBITION ON CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS IS NOT NARROWLY TAILORED AND IMPINGES THE RIGHT GUARANTEED BY ART. I, § 25, WIS. STAT. § 941.23 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER.
III.	IN LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO POSSESS AND CARRY WEAPONS, WIS. STAT. § 941.23 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO MR. GONZALES WHERE, AT MOST, HE HAD CROSSED THE THRESHOLD OF HIS APARTMENT DOOR WITH AN UNLOADED GUN IN HIS JACKET.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision