Source: http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-point-by-the-wisconsin-state-public-defender/state-v-keimonte-antonie-wilson-sr-2015ap671-cr-petition-for-review-granted-101116/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:13:01+00:00

Document:
1. Which statute governs the service of a subpoena in a criminal case: §885.03 which provides that a subpoena may be left at a witness’s abode or §805.07 and §801.11 which require reasonable diligence to personally serve a witness before leaving the subpoena at her abode?
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that he had properly served the witness with a subpoena per §885.03? If not, then whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to attempt to serve the witness personally before leaving the subpoena at her abode as required by §801.11.
¶138 . . . . The State may not circumvent the criminal process by using civil subpoena statutes. The criminal law has its own subpoena statutes, which the State was required to use.
¶139 The Wisconsin criminal code specifically provides that chapter 885, Witnesses and Oral Testimony, “shall apply in all criminal proceedings.” Wis. Stat. § 972.11(1). As a result, any attorney, including the district attorney, may secure a witness to testify at a hearing. Wis. Stat. § 885.01. By virtue of Wis. Stat. §§ 885.01 and .02, an attorney, including a district attorney, may require a witness to bring documents with him or her to a scheduled hearing.
¶139 n. 3. Perhaps the argument in favor of allowing the State to use civil subpoena statutes arises out of Wis. Stat. § 972.11(1), which makes the rules of civil actions applicable to all criminal proceedings. However, this is impermissible when the “context of a section or rule manifestly requires a different construction.” Wis. Stat. § 972.11(1). A different construction is required in this case. The criminal law has its own subpoena statutes, and therefore, it does not need to rely on, nor should it rely on, civil subpoena statutes. See Wis. Stat. § 972.11(1) (stating chapter 885 shall apply to criminal proceedings); Wis. Stat. § 885.01 (providing subpoena power); Wis. Stat. § 968.135 (providing criminal investigative subpoena power).
I would respectfully propose that Popenhagen, in particular Justice Ziegler’s quoted concurrence, is inapplicable to this case; Wilson concerned proper service of process for a witness subpoena for testimony at a hearing–a subpoena just for documents to be sent to the police/DA (as an investigatory tool).
Popenhagen involved the prosecutor improperly using a civil subpoena to obtain incriminating documents from a bank.
Wis. Stat. § 968.135 Subpoena for documents (“Upon the request of the attorney general or a district attorney and upon a showing of probable cause under s. 968.12, **a court** shall issue a subpoena requiring the production of documents, as specified in s. 968.13 (2). The documents shall be returnable to the court which issued the subpoena.”).
Allowing either DAs or defense attorneys simply to drop off a witness subpoena at the witness’s place of abode opens a Pandora’s box of problems for everyone. Everyone is better served if there is actual personal service of process, or after reasonable and diligent efforts, substitute service.
1. was the place in fact the “usual place of abode”?
2. where can the subpoena be just dropped off at the place of abode?–what happens if it is gone–blown away by wind, stolen, etc.?

References: §885
 §805
 §801
 §885
 §801
 § 972
 § 885
 § 972
 § 972
 § 972
 § 885
 § 968
 § 968