Or interesting stuff we couldn't get to otherwise. Coming to you straight from the documents themselves!
Brief of appellant
Case no: 24AP561
Case name: State v Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman
Court of Appeals District: III
Filing attorney: Kathilynne Grotelueschen
Title: Local attorney manager
Law firm / agency: Office of the State Public Defender
Circuit Court: St. Croix County
Judge: Scott Needham
You can now subscribe to updates from Appealing Wisconsin! Click on the "Subscribe" tab at the top of the blog to receive email updates when a new blog post is published!
Issues presented
Sovereignty Joeseph Helmueller Sovereign Freeman was convicted and sentenced following a jury trial held 17 months after his arrest. Helmueller was confined in the jail throughout the proceedings and tested positive for COVID-19 shortly before trial. As a result, he was seated at a separate table, six to ten feet away from his attorney. The jury was never informed of the reason for these seating arrangements or that they should not be considered when determining guilt.
Further, on the first day of trial, Helmueller interrupted his attorney’s questioning of a witness to object and then state that his attorney was fired. A loud disturbance ensued, Helmueller was removed from the courtroom, and was not present for the remainder of the four-day trial.
Helmueller’s attorney did not seek to withdraw following trial and Helmueller objected to counsel’s presence at the sentencing hearing. The circuit court did not inquire further, Helmueller was removed from the courtroom, and sentencing proceeded in his absence.
1. Was Helmueller’s constitutional right to a speedy trial violated by the 17-month delay between his arrest and the jury trial in this case?
The circuit court answered no.
This court should reverse.
2. Did the state present sufficient evidence to prove that Helmueller committed first-degree reckless homicide as a party to the crime?
The circuit court answered yes.
This court should reverse.
3. Did Helmueller’s physical separation from his attorney during his jury trial violate his constitutional rights to counsel and the presumption of innocence?
The circuit court answered no.
This court should reverse.
4. Was Helmueller’s Sixth Amendment right to choose the objective of his defense violated when his attorney conceded his guilt to several charges at trial?
The circuit court answered no. This court should reverse.
5. Was Helmueller denied the effective assistance of counsel?
The circuit court answered no.
This court should reverse.
6. Did Helmueller’s conviction for bail jumping as alleged in Counts 4, 5, and 6, violate his rights under the double jeopardy and due process clauses?
The circuit court answered no.
This court should reverse.
7. Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion when it denied Helmueller’s request for new counsel at sentencing?
The circuit court answered no.
This court should reverse.
Position on oral argument and publication
Publication may be warranted under § 809.23(1)(a) as this case will require the court to apply law relating to the presumption of innocence and the right to consult with counsel to a new factual situation—the defendant’s physical separation from his attorney at trial.
A decision in this case will also require the court to determine whether conviction for multiple bail jumping charges violates a defendant’s double jeopardy rights when the charges are all based on the same act violating one condition of a single bond which covers multiple cases. Publication, therefore, may be warranted as counsel is unaware of any Wisconsin case addressing this specific legal issue. Helmueller does not request oral argument
Brief of appellant
Case no: 24AP672
Case name: State v Cynthia M. Dominguez
Court of Appeals District: IV
Filing attorney: Nicholas DeSantis Title: Assistant state attorney general
Law firm / agency: WI Department of Justice
Circuit Court: Dane County
Judge: Josann Reynolds
Issues presented
Cynthia Dominguez, along with her co-actor Brittany Holsten, ambushed Alice. Dominguez repeatedly kicked Alice in the stomach. Alice was 14 weeks pregnant. Holsten’s boyfriend was the father. In addition to Alice’s trial testimony and to phone records proving both assailants were at the crime scene, the State introduced 18 electronic messages Holsten had sent to Alice expressing anger toward her. The defense did not object. Dominguez was found guilty of attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child. Six days later, however, the circuit court held that all 18 of the unobjected-to messages were inadmissible hearsay, requiring reversal under the plain error rule.
1. Were the 18 electronic messages Dominguez’s co-actor sent to Alice inadmissible hearsay?
The circuit court held that all 18 messages were inadmissible hearsay. This Court should reverse.
None of the 18 messages were offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but even if they had been, they still would have been admissible under exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
2. Assuming arguendo that the unobjected-to electronic communications were inadmissible hearsay, was their admission plain error warranting reversal?
The circuit court answered, “Yes.”
This Court should reverse.
Any error in admitting any of the electronic messages was not obvious, fundamental, and substantial, and in any event, the alleged errors were harmless.
Comentarios