John A. Decker

The case involved the State charging two Milwaukee police officers with misconduct in public office under Wis. Stat. sec. 946.12(1) for allegedly failing to perform CPR on an arrested suspect who stopped breathing and later died after a struggle during transport. The trial court dismissed the complaints, finding that the officers' duty under a police department rule was not mandatory, nondiscretionary, and ministerial, and the court of appeals affirmed that dismissal. The appeals court reasoned that determining the need for and type of first aid involves judgment calls rather than a purely ministerial act, that departmental rules lack the force of law required by the statute, and that public policy prevents converting internal disciplinary rules into criminal liability for public employees.

criminal law

The case concerned a challenge by James Brennan to the constitutionality of Wisconsin statute sec. 111.70(4)(jm), which provides for binding arbitration in collective bargaining disputes for police departments in cities of the first class, specifically affecting Milwaukee. Brennan argued that the statute violated equal protection rights and constituted impermissible special legislation under the Wisconsin Constitution. The court affirmed the trial court's decision that the statute is constitutional. It reasoned that the statute applies uniformly to all cities of the first class, not solely Milwaukee, that legislative classifications of cities are permissible, and that the arbitration provisions do not create unconstitutional distinctions compared to those for other municipalities.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved Calvin Ott's appeal from his conviction for injury by conduct regardless of life while using a dangerous weapon, stemming from a tavern fight in which he stabbed another man. The central issue at trial was whether Ott acted with a "depraved mind," as defined in the jury instructions. After the verdict, it emerged that a juror had brought a dictionary definition of "depraved" into the second day of deliberations. The trial court denied Ott's motion for a new trial, finding no substantial prejudice. The appellate court reversed, holding that the extraneous dictionary definition was broader than the legal instruction on depravity, was brought to the jury's attention on a key element, and created probable prejudice warranting a new trial under the standards for extraneous information under Wis. Stat. § 906.06(2).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dr. John H. Pflaum appealing an order from the State Psychology Examining Board requiring him to disclose the identities of four volunteers who participated in his experiment using the MELS electrical device during discovery in disciplinary proceedings. The trial court had affirmed the hearing examiner's order compelling this disclosure. The court decided that the psychologist-patient privilege under sec. 905.04 did not apply because the volunteers were not "patients" as defined in the statute, given that they participated solely for scientific research rather than consultation, examination, or treatment. The court also rejected Pflaum's claim that disclosure would violate the volunteers' constitutional right to privacy, concluding that no fundamental privacy interest was implicated.

procedurecivil rights

In State v. Bembenek, Lawrencia Bembenek appealed her jury conviction for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Christine Schultz, her husband's former wife, which occurred in 1981. The case centered on physical evidence including hairs matching Bembenek's found on a gag used in the crime, fibers from a wig linked to the scene, and the murder weapon identified as her husband's off-duty revolver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and life sentence, holding that the criminal complaint sufficiently established probable cause through facts and reasonable inferences. The court addressed multiple claims regarding the preliminary hearing, suppression of locker evidence, trial conduct, witness sequestration, evidence weight, and jury instructions, rejecting them as insufficient to warrant reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Alice Dean, who was convicted of theft by fraud and false swearing; one judge stayed prison sentences and imposed concurrent probation terms with conditions including three years residing in India. After an earlier appeal invalidated the India condition as exceeding statutory authority and remanded for consideration of alternatives, a different judge imposed indeterminate prison terms of up to two years plus fines. The appellate court held that the new prison sentence violated double jeopardy protections under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Wisconsin Constitution because probation is a form of punishment that cannot be replaced by imprisonment absent a probation violation. The core reasoning was that the double jeopardy clauses prohibit multiple punishments for the same offense, and once probation has been granted, the conditional liberty it provides may be forfeited only by breaching its conditions. The court reversed the judgment and order, remanding to reinstate the original probation except for the invalid condition.

criminal lawprocedure