Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Denise R. Campbell, 2018AP1190, 7/16/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a state’s appeal of the suppression of evidence derived from the stopping of Denise Campbell’s vehicle. The arresting deputy testified to various unusual driving behaviors and, in the court of appeals’ view, the trial court credited that testimony but misapplied the law to the facts. The court of appeals accordingly reverses the grant of suppression. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Walworth County DHS v. S.S.K., 2019AP782, 7/17/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

During the grounds phase of the Walworth County’s TPR case against S.S.K., she “admitted” the ground of continuing CHIPS; she didn’t plead “no contest.”  This distinction proved decisive to the court of appeals’ decision to affirm the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, A.S.L.  Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Kevin B. Hutchins, 2018AP1144-CR, 7/16/2019, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hutchins had a jury trial for the alleged sexual assault, false imprisonment, and battery of the mother of his children. The judge permitted her to testify, over objection, that he had hit her on other, earlier occasions–the proffered purpose of this testimony being to show why she didn’t immediately go to the police after this incident (and thus, apparently, to defend the credibility of her story). The court of appeals affirms. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2018AP145-FT, petition for review granted 7/10/19; case activity

Issue: 

A doctor opined that David (a pseudonym) is unable to care for himself, and therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(am), because he lost employment and relies on the assistance of the government and his family for income and housing. As a matter of law, did the circuit err by concluding that the county, under these circumstances, met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that David is dangerous?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Today Mad in America, a nonprofit that publishes a webzine on science, psychiatry and social justice ran a long article on the dark side of “Assisted Outpatient Treatment” or, as we think of it in Wisconsin, “outpatient recommitments.” Turns out they have a very dark side. Chapter 51 practitioners may find the many studies and surveys linked to in this article helpful in preparing their clients cases. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

United States v. Davis, USSC No. 18-431, June 24, 2019, affirming and vacating in part, United states v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2018); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)

No surprise here.  Section 18 U.S.C. §924(c) makes it a crime to use a firearm during a crime of violence and 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) defined a crime of violence as an offense that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force would be used in committing it. SCOTUS declared similar language unconstitutionally vague in  Sessions v. Dimaya, and it followed suit here. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Andreal Washington, 2018AP1254-CR, 7/9/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury acquitted Washington of the felony murder of Williams. Then the State charged him with 2nd degree reckless homicide. Washington moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals here affirms. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Marathon County v. D.K., 2017AP2217, petition for review granted 7/10/19; case activity

As our prior post noted, the court of appeals upheld D.K. (or “Donald”)’s commitment against his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The supreme court has now agreed to decide whether the testimony of the examining physician, who was the sole witness at D.K.’s trial, supplied enough for the court to find by “clear and convincing evidence” a “substantial probability” that D.K. was dangerous. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }