Milwaukee Criminal Defense Motions


This is your source for Wisconsin criminal defense motions and briefs-- all for free download.
 

A division of:

 

Law Offices of

Jeffrey W. Jensen

111 E. Wisconsin Avenue

Suite 1925

Milwaukee, WI 53202-4825

 

414.671.9484

Loading
The Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Jensen
111 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1925
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4825

414-671-9484
jensen@milwaukeecriminaldefense.pro

For over thirty-two years, The Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Jensen has been providing postconviction and appellate representation to persons wrongfully convicted of criminal offenses.  Attorney Jensen has handled hundreds of criminal appeals, and many of his cases resulted in published opinions.  When you are wrongfully convicted, there is no substitute for experience. 

Wisconsin Appellate Briefs

 

This is a library of brief filed in actual criminal appeals in Wisconsin.  All briefs were researched and written by Milwaukee criminal defense attorney Jeffrey W. Jensen.   If you cannot find what you are looking for, visit our custom order page.

 

If you are looking for articles on criminal defense topics, go to:  www.jensendefense.com

 

For family law forms and information, go to: www.milwaukeechildsupport.pro

 

 

The briefs in this section are divided into the following subheadings:

 

[This page}

Rules of Evidence

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Fourth Amendment (Search and Seizure)

Fifth Amendment (Remain Silent)

Sixth Amendment (Right to Counsel)

Sentencing

 

[Page Two]

Miscellaneous

Federal Appeals

Rules of Evidence

 

State v. Walter Missouri: Missouri was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.  Missouri's defense at trial was that the police officers planted the drugs on him.  Missouri sought to introduce the testimony of other men who claimed that these same officers planted drugs on them, as well.  The trial court excluded Missouri's evidence.  On appeal, in a published opinion, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Missouri should have been permitted to introduce the evidence. 


State v. Schmucker: In this appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict finding him guilty of attempting to capture nudity where it was alleged that he used a cell phone to take a picture up a woman's skirt in a public place


State v. Joseph Evans:  Evans was charged with first degree intentional homicide arising out of the shooting death of his wife.  At trial the State sought to introduce evidence that, twenty-five years earlier, Evans was involved in an abusing relationship with another girl.  Additionally, the State sought to introduce expert testimony concerning the personality profile of domestic abusers, and the likelihood that such a person would kill his wife if she attempted to leave.  Evans argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence.

 


State v. Kevin Moore:  Moore was charged with first degree intentional homicide arising out of the death of his wife, who was found bludgeoned to death in the backyard of the family home.  At trial, the court allowed the State to present evidence that Moore was in the habit of frequenting a gentleman's club; and, further, the court allowed the state to present a hearsay statement from the wife to the effect that "if anything ever happens to me, you should look at my husband first."  On appeal, Moore challenges these rulings by the trial court.

 

State v. Garrett Huff:  Huff was charged with conspiracy to commit election fraud arising out of the Michael McGee recall in Milwaukee.  During trial, the court failed to record the substance of several intercepted telephone calls.  On appeal, Huff challenges that ruling.

 

State v. Devon Sheriff: Sheriff was charged with being a party to the crime of delivery of cocaine-- principally because he happened to be in a car where a transaction occurred.   During trial, the court excluded the statements of the driver (the one who conducted the delivery) to the effect that Sheriff had nothing to do with the transaction.  Sheriff challenges that ruling on appeal.

 

Sufficiency of the Evidence

 

State v. Walter:  Walter argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support his conviction for armed robbery because there was no evidence of "asportation" (i.e. moving the property from the scene of the alleged robbery), which is a necessary element of the crime of armed robbery.

 

State v. Steffes: This is an appeal in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Steffes argues, among other things, that for the purposes of the theft by fraud statute, telephone services are not tangible property.

 

State v. Ballenger: In this appeal Ballenger argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to convict him of armed robbery where the only evidence presented was that Ballenger was a member of a group of individuals who committed similar armed robberies.  There is also an issue concerning the jury instruction for party-to-the-crime.

 

State v. McCoy:  McCoy appeals the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of first degree intentional homicide.  The evidence presented at trial was to the effect that several armed men invaded an apartment where McCoy was visiting.  A gun battle ensued, and one of the robbers was shot in the neck and fell.   Everyone ran out of the apartment except McCoy and the injured robber.  Later, when police arrived, they found the robber beaten and shot in the chest.   This case also presents an interesting issue of whether McCoy was denied his constitutional right to a public trial where the judge required the jury to deliberate throughout the night until 6:00 a.m.

 

State v. Jackson:  Here, Jackson argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of second degree sexual assault where the evidence did not establish that the victim was struck in an "intimate part" of her body.

 

State v. Everett:  Everett petitioned for discharge from his Chapter 980 sexually violent person commitment.  The trial court found his petition to be facially sufficient to allege that he was no longer a sexually violent person, and the court ordered a hearing.  At the hearing, the State presented no expert testimony.  The only evidence presented was by Everett .  Everett's expert testified that, in her opinion, Everrett no longer met the criteria for commitment.  Nonetheless, the trial court denied the petition.  On appeal, Everett argues that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that he was still a sexually violent person.

 

State v. Zalazar:  Zalazar was convicted of first degree reckless homicide.  Evidence was presented at trial that Zalazar put her eight year-old child in a cold shower as a punishment.  The child was not restrained, and Zalazar then left the room.  When she returned, she found the child kneeling in the tub.  The child was later pronounced dead due to hypothermia.  On appeal, Zalazar argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to convict her of first degree reckless homicide because there was no evidence that she was subjectively aware that placing the child in the cold shower created a risk of death or great bodily harm (which is an element of the crime); moreover, Zalazar argues that she did not exhibit "utter disregard for human life" (another element of the crime).

 

 

Fourth Amendment (Search and Seizure)

 

State v. Eduardo Ivanez:  The police were investigating the death of a teenaged girl whose body was discovered in a crawl space within an abandoned home.  A school child-- who had gone to look at the body with his friends-- told police that he had heard a rumor that "Smokey" had killed the girl.   The child said that Smokey lived nearby.  Shortly thereafter, detectives saw a young man fitting Smokey's description on the porch of the home pointed out by the child.  The police then went and arrested Smokey (Eduardo Ivanez).  He later confessed to the killing, claiming that it was done in self-defense.  Ivanez sought to suppress his confession on Fourth Amendment grounds claiming that his warrantless arrest was without probable cause.  The circuit court denied the motion.   This is Ivanez's brief before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.


State v. Jeremy Hollis:  The police were called to Hollis' apartment because, according to the caller, Hollis was behaving in a disorderly manner.  When the police arrived, Hollis was inside of his apartment, and would not allow the police to enter without a warrant.  The police discovered that Hollis was on probation, so the police called the probation agent to the scene.  They then entered Hollis' apartment claiming that this was a probation search.  Hollis filed a motion suppress claiming that the probation officer was used by the police as a "stalking horse."


State v. Peter Long:  Long owns a number of investment properties in the Neenah-Menasha area.  One evening he was attempting to collect delinquent rent from a tenant, who refused to open the door.  Instead, the tenant called the police and claim that Long was intoxicated, and that he was going to Milwaukee to kill an acquaintance.  Based on this information alone, Washington County Sheriff's Deputies set up a road-block on Highway 41, and stopped Long's vehicle.  The deputies approached Long's vehicle with weapons drawn.   Long was then arrested for operating under the influence of alcohol.  Long filed a pretrial motion seeking to suppress all evidence on the grounds that the police stopped his vehicle and arrested him without probable cause.  The circuit court denied the motion.  This is Long's brief before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.


State v. Cantwell:  The defendant was stopped and arrested for operating under the influence of alcohol.  After the defendant was already under arrest, in secured in the squad car, the officer searched Cantwell's vehicle and found a small amount of marijuana in a backpack in the back seat.  This appeal involves the application of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Arizona v. Gant, holding that a search of a vehicle, incident to an arrest, is usually unreasonable.

 

State v. James Multaler:  Multaler, who was at one point thought to be the most dangerous man in the Wisconsin prison system, was being investigated by police for being the "Southside Strangler", responsible for the strangulation death of numerous young women in Milwaukee in the 1970s.   Police obtained a warrant to search Multaler's home based, in some cases, on twenty year-old information.  In this published Wisconsin Supreme Court case, Multaler argues that the court erred in issuing the warrant to search his home.

 

State v. Stewart: State narcotics agents received a tip from an informant that Stewart would be flying to Milwaukee from Las Vegas with a quantity of cocaine.  The agents met Stewart as he disembarked from the aircraft, and arrested him.  Stewart argues that the agents lacked probable cause to arrest.

 

 

Fifth Amendment (Right to Remain Silent/Due Process)

 

State v. Oscar Ruiz:  Ruiz, who is a Mexican national, was charged with first degree intentional homicide.  Ruiz was "asked" by the police to come in an answer questions about the homicide.  Ruiz was taken to the sheriff's department in a back of a cruiser.  The investigators testified that because they did not consider Ruiz to be under a arrest, they deliberately did not read him the Miranda warning.  Additionally, Ruiz did not speak English very well, and the investigators engaged in aggressive questioning and did not provide Ruiz with an interpretor.


State v. Robert Huber: Huber attempted to fire his attorney and represent himself, but, without conducting a hearing, the court denied Huber's request.  Additionally, the judge closed the courtroom during the playing of videos depicting Huber having sex with the victims.  On appeal, Huber claims that he was denied his constitutional right to self-representation, and he was denied his right to public trial when the judge closed the courtroom.

 

State v. Yang:  Yang was arrested under suspicion of first degree intentional homicide.  Yang was a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War.  During police interrogation he invoked his right to counsel.  The questioning stopped.  Later, though, a police detective, who was also a veteran, returned and played upon Yang's emotions about the war.  Eventually Yang agreed to be interrogated again by this detective.  On appeal, Yang claims that after invoking his right to counsel he never reinitated questioning.

 

State v. Davis:  Davis filed a pretrial motion to suppress an on-scene identification ("show-up") on the grounds that the procedure violated his due process rights.  At the hearing, the State argued that because the officers did not have probable cause to arrest Davis, the show-up procedure was "necessary" under State v. Dubose.   On appeal, the issue is whether a mere lack of probable cause to arrest establishes necessity.  Davis argues that it does not, because then almost any person in the world is subject to a show-up-- a procedure that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has characterized as unduly suggestive, and the source of many wrongful convictions.

 

Sixth Amendment (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel)

 

State v. Michael M. Miller:  Miller was charged with, and convicted of, first degree reckless homicide.  Miller filed a postconviction motion in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress his confession on the grounds that the confession was obtained as a result of a warrantless and unreasonable search of a home where Miller was arrested.   Additionally, Miller claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence, in a motion to suppress his statement, that Miller had retained an attorney and he had invoked his right to counsel.  The trial court denied the postconviction motion, and Miller appeals.

 

State v. Lisimba Love:

  Love was charged with, and convicted of, the armed robbery of Milwaukee Bucks star player, Glenn "Big Dog" Robinson.   Love filed a postconviction motion alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and to call exculpatory witnesses at trial.  The trial court denied the motion, and Love appealed.

 

Sentencing

 

State v. Allan Ernst: In this published Wisconsin Supreme Court case, Ernst challenged the trial court's ruling that he could be called as a witness by the State in his (Ernst's) collateral attack on a prior operating under the influence conviction.  Ernst filed a motion alleging that a prior OWI conviction could not be used to enhance his sentence because the conviction was obtained in contravention of his right to counsel.  The Supreme Court ruled that the State could call Ernst as a witnesss.

 

State v. Igor Ozegovic:  Ozegovic was convicted of numerous counts of armed robbery.  During the sentencing hearing, the court made Ozegovic eligible for the Challenge Incarceration Program ("Boot Camp").  However, when Ozegovic was received in the prison system, he was informed that he was not eligible for Boot Camp because he was not a citizen.  Therefore, Ozegovic filed a postconviction motion to modify his sentence because it was based on a mistake of fact.  The trial court denied that motion, and Ozegovic appeals.

 

[NEXT PAGE]