Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Marquis Lakeith Pendelton, 2017AP2081-CR, 6/19/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A caller reported to police that 2 suspicious males had been looking into cars parked in a church lot at 1:30 a.m, at 68th and Silver Spring in Milwaukee and had just run away. An officer thought that the dispatcher said that one of the males was Black and wearing a dark hoodie. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

That’s one conclusion that could be drawn from yesterday’s contest between seasoned human debaters and an artificial-intelligence infused IBM computer with a screen for a face. In one debate the issue was whether government should subsidize space exploration. Another concerned telemedicine. The debaters (including the computer) were not told the topics in advance. Each side had 4 minutes to make an opening statement, followed by a 4-minute rebuttal and a 2-minute closing summary. According to USA Today’s coverage:

Through the IBM Cloud, the computer scanned billions of sentences to generate a coherent and persuasive position on the various topics. The machine then listen[ed] to its opponent’s speech and generate[d] what IBM claims is a spontaneous compelling rebuttal, exhibiting a type of argumentation that until recently was simply out of reach for the machines.

It is unclear what information the human debaters relied upon. When asked about the real life uses of a computer that can debate, IBM’s Research Director pointed to legislators and lawyers. See the computer going head-to- head with the human debater here. Is it all that different from an appellate argument?

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

County of Milwaukee v. Ross J. Romenesko, 2017AP1042-1044, 6/19/18, District 1, (1-judge appeal, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Romenesko prevailed below–the circuit court (1) suppressed a revised report relating to his blood sample, (2)  precluded but one of its experts from testifying, and eventually (3) dismissed the the OWI 1st offense and operating with a PAC 1st offense charges against him as a sanction against the County. The court of appeals affirmed the suppression decision but reversed the other 2 decisions. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Theoris Raphel Stewart, 2017AP1587-CR & 2017AP1588-CR, District 1, 6/19/18 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Facing sentencing for failure to pay child support, Stewart forged some documents to support his argument for probation rather than a prison sentence. For his trouble he was charged with and convicted of identity theft under § 943.203(2). The court of appeals rejects his argument that his use of the forged documents did not violate that statute.  Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Laron Henry, 2017AP939-CR & 2017AP940-CR, District 1, 6/19/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Henry sought to withdraw his guilty pleas to three crimes. He claimed that with respect to one of the crimes, he didn’t “ratify” his guilty plea, he didn’t understand one of the elements of the crime, and there wasn’t a factual basis for the plea to the crime. The court of appeals rejects his claims. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Tyson Timbs v. Indiana, USSC 17-1091, certiorari granted 6/18/18

Question presented:

Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Gilberto Garza, Jr. v. Idaho, USSC No. 17-1026, certiorari granted 6/18/18

Question presented:

Does the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000), apply where a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Congratulations to ASPD Lee Todd and Prof. Stuart Banner of the UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic. They collaborated on a petition for writ of certiorari in Bartelt v. Wisconsin, and SCOTUSblog has named it “Petition of the Day.” The question presented is: Whether a non-custodial interrogation at a police station becomes custodial once the defendant confesses to a serious crime because at that point a reasonable person would know that he is not free to leave. Fingers and toes crossed for the petitioner!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }