Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

2. Critical Stage

Scott Schmidt v. Brian Foster, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 17-1727, 12/20/18, reversing panel decision of 5/29/18 Schmidt, as we discussed in our post on the Seventh Circuit’s (now reversed) habeas grant, was summoned into chambers and questioned by the judge about the testimony he wanted to give in his defense. His lawyer was… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Scott Schmidt v. Brian Foster, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 17-1727, 5/29/18, reversing Schmidt v. Pollard, No. 13-CV-1150 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2017); reversed en banc 12/20/18 A criminal defendant is entitled to counsel at all “critical stages” of the case. You probably think that a hearing, before a murder trial, that determines whether… Read More

{ 0 comments }

The latest edition of the Volokh Conspiracy analyzes a recent 12-4 en banc decision by the 6th Circuit decision in which the majority answers the question above “no” based on current precedent. However, a “concurrence dubitante” argues that this conflicts with The Founders’ intent when they drafted the 6th Amendment. Another concurring opinion calls on SCOTUS… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Attorney Chis Donovan posted some interesting research on WACDL’s listserv last week.  He was looking into what constitutes a “critical stage” of a criminal prosecution at which the defendant is entitled to counsel.  He cautioned readers to “key cite” the cases before using them. On Point includes Donovan’s list here  and has indexed it so… Read More

{ 0 comments }

seventh circuit decision, denying habeas relief in 641 N.E.2d 371 (Ill. 1994) and 521 N.E.2d 38 (1988) Habeas Review – 6th Amendment Attachment of Counsel – State Court Findings The Seventh Circuit rejects, on habeas review of his Illinois conviciton, Thompkins’ challenge to admissibility of his statement. Thompkins made his statement after his arrest and, according to the state court, before… Read More

{ 1 comment }

State v. Scott E. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 113 (recommended for publication); case activity Adequate Provocation Defense, §§ 939.44(1),  940.01(2)(a) – Test for Admissibility The “some evidence,” rather than Schmidt’s proposed less stringent “mere relevance,” standard controls admissibility of evidence of adequate provocation that would reduce first- to second-degree intentional homicide: ¶9        When applying the some evidence… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Kevin G. v. Jennifer M. S., 2009AP1377, District 4, 8/17/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer M.S.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Evidence held sufficient to support termination for failure to assume parental responsibility, § 48.415(6)(a), applying “totality-of-the-circumstances test” where “the fact-finder should consider any support or care, or lack thereof, the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brandon J. Carter, 2010 WI App 37

court of appeals decision; for Carter: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br. Ex Parte Judicial Questioning, Pretrial Proceeding Pretrial judicial questioning of a witness at return of a bench warrant worked deprivation of the defendant’s rights to counsel and presence at trial when the witness was subsequently impeached with statements she… Read More

{ 0 comments }