Was the petitioner denied a fair and impartial decision maker in violation of due process and equal protection of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution?Synopsis at Supreme Court accepts five new cases.
Did the petitioner fail to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning his claim that he was unconstitutionally denied the opportunity to review a videotape, and if he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, may the court nonetheless decide the issues set forth in the petition for review and listed below? See Wis. Stat. §801.02(7)(b); Wis. Admin. Code §DOC 310.05; State ex rel. Hensley v. Endicott, 2001 WI 105, 245 Wis. 2d 607, 629 N.W.2d 686; State ex rel. Smith v. McCaughtry, 222 Wis. 2d 68, 586 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1998); Santiago v. Ware, 205 Wis. 2d 295, 556 N.W.2d 356 (Ct. App.), rev. denied, 207 Wis. 2d 284, 560 N.W.2d 273 (1996).
Does the obligation of governmental authorities to produce exculpatory information, as set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, apply to all or some prison disciplinary proceedings, and, in particular, to the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner? See, e.g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2003); State ex rel. Ortega v. McCaughtry, 221 Wis. 2d 376, 585 N.W.2d 640 (Ct. App. 1998).
If there is an obligation on governmental authorities to produce potentially exculpatory information, what should be the process for determining whether the information sought is exculpatory and what should be the remedy for the failure to produce it?
Was the petitioner deprived of due process and equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution when he was denied the right to obtain a videotape that he contends is exculpatory evidence?
Was the petitioner deprived of due process and equal protection when there was insufficient evidence of his guilt, as he contends?
10:45 a.m. State v. Cross (2009AP3-CR) bypass of the Court of Appeals on the issues:
Whether a defendant who plead guilty to a crime under the mistaken belief that he faced greater potential punishment than he actually faced is, upon postconviction motion, entitled to an automatic plea withdrawal under due process grounds or whether he must show that a plea withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.Synopsis at Supreme Court accepts two new cases
Whether the Court of Appeals’ holdings in State v. Harden, 2005 WI App 252, 287 Wis. 2d 871, 707 N.W.2d 173 and State v. Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52, 251 Wis. 2d 245, 641 N.W.2d 715 (petition for review denied) are in conflict.
Wisconsin Supreme Court to consider how informed defendant must be to enter guilty plea, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, August 25, 2009
1:30 p.m. State v. Conger (2008AP755-CR) certification by the Court of Appeals on the issues:
What is the trial court’s scope of review when deciding whether to accept or reject a plea agreement?Synopsis at Supreme Court accepts four new cases
What factors must a trial court consider when determining whether a plea agreement is in the public interest?
May a trial court take into account the view of law enforcement when considering the public’s interest in a plea agreement?
Deal or no deal? Justices to consider when a trial court may reject a plea agreement, by Alex De Grand, State Bar of Wisconsin, November 18, 2009