Do cigarette butts decompose? Do they “result…from community activities”? Those are just two of the burning questions left unanswered (smoldering?) after this blaze of statutory construction. Read more
The court of appeals’ decision in State v. Herrmann, which held that Wisconsin’s switchblade prohibition can’t be applied to a possession in a person’s home, has been attracting attention around the World Wide Web. Jurist’s Paper Chase has a news item. The Volokh Conspiracy has a post, and some sites focused on the right to keep and bear knives noted the decision, too (e.g., here and here). Onward the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence takes it way, with Wisconsin court decisions in the vanguard (with apologies to McCormick, not to mention Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze and Bishop Berkeley).
In light of the Second Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), Wisconsin’s prohibition on the possession of a switchblade knife, § 941.24(1), is unconstitutional as applied to a person who possesses a switchblade in his or her own home. Read more
How often does SCOW issue unanimous decisions for the defense these days? Not too often. So you’d think that after being reversed 7-0 in State v. Hemp, District 1 might approach §973.015, with a “once bitten, twice shy” mindset. But with this published decision, D1 seems more determined to rein in Wisconsin’s expunction statute. Read more
Following the footsteps of State v. Warren, No. 2012AP1727-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App Jan. 16, 2013), the court of appeals holds that an officer’s testimony about how a defendant performed on an HGN test is not subject to the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony. Read more
The court serially takes up and rejects each of Grant’s challenges to his conviction, at trial, of possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, as well as the sentencing court’s denial of ERP/SAP and CIP eligibility. Read more
The court of appeals rebuffs Wright’s claim that postconviction counsel was ineffective for not raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal. The court also rejects Wright’s claim that the trial court engaged in improper ex parte communication with the jury during deliberations. Read more