Wisconsin State Public Defender

The Wisconsin State Public Defender's Office (SPD) has been providing "justice for all" since 1977, and is an independent, executive-branch state agency that ensures Wisconsin meets its constitutional requirement of providing legal representation to the indigent.

The mission of the Wisconsin State Public Defender is to zealously represent clients, protect constitutional rights, and advocate for an effective and fair criminal justice system.  Our commitment is to treat our clients with dignity and compassion.  Vision statement:  The Wisconsin State Public Defender Office will lead the way in protecting justice for all.

The agency provides legal representation to the indigent throughout the state in all of Wisconsin's 72 counties.  Organizationally, the SPD has 37 local trial offices, 2 appellate offices and a central administrative office.  The agency utilizes staff attorneys as well as contract private attorneys (to handle conflict and overflow cases).

The SPD's website provides resources to clients and potential clients, private attorneys who are certified to take SPD case appointments, individuals involved in the criminal justice system, and the public interested in the state agency that delivers on Wisconsin's constitutional requirement regarding indigent defense.

SPD Main Telephone number: 608-266-0087

Website: https://www.wispd.org/
Follow:

Latest from Wisconsin State Public Defender - Page 2

State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.
After concerns were raised about T.R.T.’s competency, the circuit court ordered an examination and scheduled a hearing to address two questions: “(1) whether T.R.T. was incompetent (the “competency determination”); and (2) if so, whether there was a likelihood that T.R.T. could, with…
Continue Reading COA holds that trial court did not err in finding that defendant could be restored to competency

Curtis L. Walker v. Dan Cromwell, No. 23-2240, 6/16/25

Despite making a “strong case for relief” that his de-facto life sentence for a homicide committed when he was 17 violated the Eighth Amendment, the Seventh Circuit held that Curtis Walker’s habeas petition could not overcome the heavy burden imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to show that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the …
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit denies habeas petition

State v. Scott R. Dachelet, 2023AP970, 6/25/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
Wisconsin’s seemingly straightforward sentence credit statute – Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) – is required to accommodate an infinite variety of scenarios.  Here, the COA addressed whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit on a withheld sentence where probation was revoked while also receiving credit for an imposed and stayed sentence that was revoked.  Because lifting the stay on the imposed and stayed sentence…
Continue Reading COA addresses dual sentence credit when imposed and stayed sentence is lifted in case recommended for publication.

Waukesha County v. J.A.K., 2024AP2535, 6/25/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another Chapter 51 appeal, COA rejects the usual arguments and affirms.

Evidence of Dangerousness

Following recommitment, “Janice” argues the evidence was insufficient to establish she was dangerous. Although COA’s lengthy statement of facts contains many concerning details about Janice’s historical conduct, Janice argues that the mere fact that she was once dangerousness is insufficient to prove current dangerousness in a recommitment proceeding. (…
Continue Reading COA rejects sufficiency challenges in 51 appeal and affirms

State v. Richard Leo Mathewson, 2022AP2124-CR, 6/17/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

COA holds that prospective juror’s equivocal answers during voir dire regarding bias against defendant charged with sexual assault of a child is not sufficient to overcome presumption that juror is impartial.

During voir dire for Richard Mathewson’s trial for repeated sexual assault of a child, the circuit court asked prospective jurors whether they had “a feeling of bias or prejudice in the outcome…
Continue Reading COA: Prospective juror’s equivocal answers regarding bias not sufficient to overcome presumption of impartiality

State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2025 WI 21, 6/13/25, reversing COA’s authored, unpublished opinion; case activity

SCOW considers whether an expert witness violated Haseltine‘s anti-vouching rule when she testified that only around one percent of child sexual assault disclosures are false without offering an opinion on whether the victim in this case was telling the truth. A unanimous court overrules Mader and any other court of appeals case that holds statistical evidence alone violates the Haseltine…
Continue Reading SCOW holds statistical evidence alone does not violate Haseltine rule

State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense  impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.

The criminal complaint alleged that Holmes’ vehicle…
Continue Reading COA affirms OWI conviction at trial, finding that nontestifying witness’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial and defendant not subjected to custodial interrogation.

State v. Peter Joseph Idell, 2024AP2230, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA holds that an odor of intoxicants and the driver’s 2009 conviction for OWI established reasonable suspicion to extend stop for expired license plates to investigate OWI.

A West Allis police officer stopped Peter Idell for driving a vehicle with expired license plates.  The officer approached the vehicle and smelled intoxicants; Idell was the only person in the vehicle.  The officer…
Continue Reading COA holds that driver’s odor of alcohol and prior conviction for OWI provides reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop

Rivers v. Guerrero, USSC No. 23-1345, 6/12/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

A unanimous SCOTUS held that a habeas petitioner’s second filing asserting a new claim for relief, submitted after the district court entered judgment with respect to the first filing but while the first filing was pending on appeal, qualifies as a “second or successive” petition and must be approved by the court of appeals before considered by the district court.

Title 28, United…
Continue Reading SCOTUS: Second habeas petition filed while first petition pending on appeal must clear procedural hurdle before claim may be considered on its merits

State v. Timothy J. Petrie, 2024AP2629-CR, 6/11/25, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Petrie argued the officer lacked probable cause to perform a preliminary breath test (PBT), therefore all evidenced gathered afterward must be suppressed. On appeal, he contends that the circuit court improperly applied the independent source doctrine because the state failed to present evidence at the suppression hearing and the court relied on the complaint. COA reverses and remands for an…
Continue Reading Defense Win: Circuit court erroneously exercised discretion when it denied motion to suppress under independent source doctrine without evidentiary hearing

City of West Bend v. Logan Patrick Lang, 2024AP2559, District II, 6/4/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying Lang’s suppression motion. Lang did not challenge the initial stop, but argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for field sobriety tests.
At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that he saw Lang’s car in the parking lot of middle school at 11:15 p.m., which struck him as…
Continue Reading COA affirms PAC conviction, concludes officer had reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop for FSTs

State v. Kordell Grady, 2025 WI 22, 6/13/25, affirming COA’s summary disposition order; case activity
Although SCOW presumably took this case to clarify the rules of Zoom court–and the oral argument focused intensely on such questions–SCOW ultimately opts to issue a decision which makes no substantive law and denies relief based on what it claims is a deferential review of the circuit court’s factual findings.
Following his plea and sentencing, Grady appeared via Zoom for a restitution…
Continue Reading SCOW relies on deferential standard of review to reject allegation that Zoom procedure violated defendant’s due process rights

State v. Nicholas J. Nero, 2023AP543, District III, 6/10/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA found that law enforcement had probable cause that Nicholas Nero was driving under the influence, independent from his compelled statement to his probation officer and un-Mirandized statement to a deputy sheriff, and therefore affirmed the circuit court’s order denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood draw.  The COA also found that Nero’s claims for ineffective assistance of…
Continue Reading COA: Sufficient evidence to request blood draw independent from defendant’s compelled statements; defendant’s IAC claims were conclusory and undeveloped.

State v. Derek J. Jarvi 2023AP2136-CR, 6/12/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Despite the State’s efforts to overturn Jarvi’s postconviction win of a new trial, the court of appeals rejects the State’s evidentiary arguments and holds that it failed to prove harmless error in this case.
Jarvi was convicted of second-degree sexual assault of a person under the influence of an intoxicant contrary to § 940.225(2)(cm) following a jury trial. (¶1). The issue presented…
Continue Reading Defense Win: COA holds that circuit court wrongly limited defendant’s testimony; holds error is not harmless

We made the mistake of waiting to consolidate our monthly digest given the slow pace of the court. Turns out there’s a lot to post on! This installment features an interesting decision on child porn possession, multiple alleged Franks violations,  some Fourth Amendment wrangling, disturbing prisoner abuse in Wisconsin institutions, and a handful of non-Wisconsin habeas cases!
United States of America v. Michael Clark, No. 24-1403: This is a Wisconsin-originating case involving an alleged Franks violation. The Seventh previously remanded…
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Cases for April and May

State v. T.A.W., 2025AP437-CR, 6/3/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although the charges against T.A.W. — resisting an officer causing soft tissue injury and retail theft — are not “serious crimes” under Wis. Stat. § 969.08, which specifies procedures for pretrial release, the COA found that the State met its burden to show an important governmental interest in forcibly medicating T.A.W. to competency under the aggravated circumstances of the case.
T.A.W. (referred to as Thomas)…
Continue Reading COA: State has important interest, for purposes of Sell, to forcibly medicate defendant charged with resisting arrest causing soft tissue injury.