Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2017AP1202-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 11/13/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1.   Is this Court’s holding in Avila–that it is “not reasonably likely” that the standard JI-140 reduces the State’s burden of proof–good law; or should it be overruled by the Court on the grounds that it is rebutted by empirical evidence?

Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

How to measure Justice Abrahamson’s influence?

Richard Posner wrote a whole book aimed at measuring Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s judicial influence. See Cardozo: A Study in Reputation. The book blurb asks: “What makes a great judge? How are reputations forged? Why do some reputations endure, while others crumble? And how can we know whether a reputation is fairly deserved?”

Because this is Justice Abrahamson’s last term, SCOWstats has begun asking similar questions about Wisconsin’s longest-serving justice. Yesterday’s post tried one of Posner’s techniques to assess her judicial influence as compared to her colleagues on SCOW. Click here. If you have other ideas about how to measure Justice Abrahamson’s influence, feel free to post them in the comment section below.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2017AP1720-CR, 11/13/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Here’s good one for SCOW. A jury convicted Pope of 2 counts of 1st degree homicide in 1996. His lawyer forgot to file a notice of intent. Twenty years later, the State stipulated to reinstatement of Pope’s direct appeal. He tried to order transcripts but couldn’t because the court reporters had destroyed their notes. The circuit court ordered a new trial, but the court of appeals reversed because his new lawyer could not predict what “colorable claims” lurked in transcripts that weren’t prepared and could never be reconstructed. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

St. Croix County v. Kimberly L. Severson, 2017AP1111, 11/13/18, District 3, (i-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a City of Eau Claire v. Booth redux. In 2001 Severson was charged with OWI 1st in Eau Claire County and convicted of a separate OWI 1st in St. Croix County. Had St. Croix conviction been properly charged as an OWI 2nd, Severson would have had a constitutional right to counsel. But te court of appeals, applying Booth, held that Severson’s failure to object to the St. Croix County circuit court’s lack of competency to proceed to judgment forfeited that issue for appeal. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Another garage hot pursuit case

State v. Jonalle L. Ferraro, 2018AP498, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

As in Palmersheim just last week, here we have another successor to Weber from the 2016 term – an officer follows a driver (or recent driver) into his or her garage to arrest. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael E. Hale, 2018AP812, 11/8/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

Hale appeals the circuit court’s order that he unreasonably refused a chemical test; the only issue on appeal is whether the officer had probable cause. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Monroe County v. B.L., 2018AP694, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.L. argues on appeal that the doctor who initiated his emergency detention could not also be one of the examiners appointed under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)1.. The court does not address the argument, because B.L. raises it for the first time on appeal. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Juneau County DHS v. L.O.O., 2018AP654, District 4, 11/8/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The County filed a TPR petition alleging as grounds that L.O.O. abandoned his child under § 48.415(1)(a)2.  The County alleged 6 three-month periods of abandonment. (¶4). Because there was no issue of material fact as to one of the periods (from January 1 to May 2, 2016), summary judgment was appropriate. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }