Opinion
No. 2013AP1576–CR.
2013-12-27
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Thomas A. JAHNKE, Defendant–Appellant.
Although Jahnke's motion alluded to the possibility that the delay “also prejudiced Mr. Jahnke's ability to pursue all bases for a defense in this case,” specifically the destruction of the blood sample, the postconviction motion, as we have already seen, specifically conceded that “Mr. Jahnke does not at this point challenge this Court's [that is, the circuit court] ruling on Jahnke's motion to suppress evidence of his blood-alcohol level.” His appellate brief notes, amorphously, that he “did not challenge the circuit court's decision on this [suppression] motion, and does not challenge it here on appeal.... Mr. Jahnke now does not know whether testing the blood sample would have been helpful, as the sample has been destroyed.”