The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted to accept six new cases, four of which originated in Milwaukee County. The court also acted to deny review in 53 cases.
The cases up for review are as follows.
In a certification involving two Fond du Lac County cases — State v. Nancy J. Pinnow and State v. Travis J. Seaton — the state Supreme Court will examine whether the failure to object to the closure of a public trial under the Sixth Amendment is to be analyzed on appeal under the forfeiture standard or the waiver standard.
In Kochanski v. Speedway Superamerica, state justices will examine the “absent witness” jury instruction, which effectively allows jurors to presume that the party who has elected not to call certain witnesses is hiding relevant, adverse information from them. This case originated in Milwaukee County.
In State v. Robinson, another Milwaukee County case, the state Supreme Court will examine if a defendant’s double-jeopardy rights were violated when the circuit court increased the total period of initial incarceration one day after imposing the original sentence.
A Dane County case, State v. Lopez, will examine the interplay of a trial court’s discretionary power to accept a plea withdrawal and Wis. Stat. § 908.08, which allows child-abuse victims under the age of 16 to testify by video. More specifically, the state Supreme Court will review a Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the determination of prejudice where the child victim turned 16 while the case was pending.
In Milwaukee Co. v. Mary F.-R., state justices are asked to examine two issues:
The case involves constitutional challenges to the involuntary commitment of a woman under Wis. Chapter 51, the state’s mental health commitment law.
While considering State v. Jackson, another Milwaukee County case, justices will examine the holding in McMorris v. State and related Wisconsin case authorities in light of Wis. Stat. §§ 904.04(2)(b) and 904.05. The state Supreme Court will review whether homicide suspect Curtis L. Jackson’s rights of compulsory process and fair trial were denied when his motion to enter evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence was denied.