Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

7. Plain Error

Greer v. United States, No. 19-8709, cert. granted 1/11/21; SCOTUSblog page Question presented:  Whether, when applying plain-error review based on an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, Rehaif v. United States, a circuit court of appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

United States v. Gary, No. 20-444, cert granted 1/8/21; SCOTUSblog page Question presented: Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a), is automatically entitled to plain error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Thomas A. Nelson, 2019AP194-CR, 12/9/20, District 2 (recommendation for publication); case activity (including briefs. This split court of appeals opinion, which is recommended for publication, has “petition granted” written all over it.  Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004) held that a trial court violates a defendant’s right to confrontation when it… Read more

{ 1 comment }

SCOTUS to clarify plain error review standard

Rosales-Mireles v. United States, USSC No. 16-9493, cert granted 9/28/17 Question presented: In United States v. Olano, this Court held that, under the fourth prong of plain error review, “[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. John A. Augoki, 2016AP231-CR, 4/25/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Augoki raises two claims on appeal of his jury-trial conviction of three sexual assaults: that the jury heard other-acts evidence it should hot have heard (raised here as plain error) and that the court unconstitutionally limited his cross-examination of a… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Frank M. Zdzieblowski, 2014 WI App 130; case activity The prosecutor during voir dire elicited a promise from prospective jurors that they would convict if the State proved the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and then reminded the jurors of that promise in his rebuttal closing argument. The court of… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brian A. Patterson, Appeal No. 2013AP749-CR, District 1, 7/22/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity The State charged Patterson with 1st-degree intentional homicide in a shooting death, but the jury convicted him of a lesser-included offense: 1st degree reckless homicide.  In a cut-and-dried decision, the court of appeals held the evidence sufficient to support the conviction… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brian L. Jackson, 2012AP1008-CR, District 1, 5/14/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity Sufficiency of the evidence In a necessarily fact-specific discussion (¶¶4-5, 10-12), the court of appeals holds there was sufficient evidence to support Jackson’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm despite the existence… Read more

{ 0 comments }