Robert, the father of Jessica, appeals the termination of is parental rights. Specifically, he argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether he failed to communicate with her for more than six months, and even if he did, whether he had good cause for his failure. Read more
In this case, a deputy applied for a warrant, saying he had
received anonymous information on June 13, 2014 that a subject went to Guy S Hillary’s residence to fix a vehicle and Hillary proceeded to show the complainant a very large marijuana grow in a garage on Hillary’s property. Complainant stated that there are several grow rooms within the garage containing several large marijuana plants. Complainant stated that Hillary was bragging about how much money he makes selling marijuana.
Both parties agree that this did not establish probable cause–their dispute is about whether other information in the affidavit was lawfully obtained and, if not, whether it had to be excised. The court of appeals, however, rejects the state’s concession and declares this tip good enough. Read more
Ambroziak argued that he was incorrectly sentenced for a 2nd-offense OWI because the State had failed to prove the existence of a prior OWI-related offense beyond a reasonable doubt. But the court of appeals held that the State carried its burden. Thus, the circuit court correctly sentenced Ambroziak with second-offense OWI penalties. Read more
This opinion resolves 2 issues worthy of publication and–very likely–a petition for review. According to the court of appeals, an attorney does not perform deficiently by failing to inform his client, an undocumented immigrant, that a plea would render him inadmissible to the U.S. and ineligible for DACA. Furthermore–for the first–the court of appeals holds that the “guilty plea waiver” rule applies to all claims for ineffective assistance of counsel claim except where the claim relates to the fairness or the property of the plea itself. Read more
In case you missed it, the New York Times ran an interview with him last week. And now the ABA Journal has this story: “Posner says most judges regard pro se litigants as ‘kind of trash not worth the time.'” Both mention his forthcoming book on the topic. He predicts that it will make his colleagues uncomfortable. That’s sure to boost sales!
If you know of a pro se appellant or respondent with a civil case in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, feel free to refer them to the Wisconsin State Bar’s Appellate Help Desk: email@example.com or 414-671-9041. Again, that’s for civil appeals in Wisconsin appellate courts.
Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.
Issues (copied from petition for review)
1. The central issue at trial was whether McAlister participated in the charged robberies. The state’s evidence on that point consisted entirely of the allegations of two confessed participants seeking to mitigate the consequences of their own misconduct. The jury knew that the state’s witnesses had a motive to falsely accuse McAlister but those witnesses denied under oath having done so. Under these circumstances, is newly discovered evidence from three separate witnesses swearing that the state’s witnesses admitted prior to trial that they intended to falsely accuse McAlister “cumulative” and “merely tend to impeach the credibility of witnesses” such that it could not support a newly discovered evidence claim?
2. Whether the allegations of McAlister’s §974.06 motion were sufficient to require a new trial and therefore an evidentiary hearing on his claim. Read more