Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

7. Double jeopardy,

Ludicrous is not the same thing as absurd

State v. Medford B. Matthews, III, 2019 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs) It’s a crime in Wisconsin to have sex with a person under 18. Specifically, it’s a misdemeanor, if that person is 16 or older—like the 17-and-a-half-year-old alleged victim here. But, it’s tough to have sex without (1) being in a private… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Terance Martez Gamble v. United States, USSC No. 17-646, certiorari granted 6/28/18 Question presented: Whether the Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. Decision below: United States v. Gamble, 694 Fed Appx 750 (11th Cir. 2017) (unpublished) USSC Docket Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) The “separate sovereigns”… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ronald Marshall Jewett, 2015AP1014-CR, District 3, 8/30/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The question presented in this case is whether a certified driving record from the Wisconsin DOT is sufficient evidence to establish 2 prior OWI convictions in Minnesota–even though the original court records for those convictions no longer exist. The… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Joshua Java Berry, 2016 WI App 40; case activity (including briefs) Berry was found guilty at a bench trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm under § 941.29(2)(a) (2013-14). Before sentencing, Berry’s lawyer figured out that Berry’s prior conviction was for a misdemeanor, not a felony. The court vacated the felon-in-possession conviction and… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Aman D. Singh, 2015AP850-CR, District 4, 1/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity Singh, appealing pro se, seeks to reverse a twelve-year-old OWI-second conviction for which his sentence is long over. He had initially been found liable for a first offense; this forfeiture was reopened and dismissed, presumably after a prior out-of-state implied… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jesse H. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/24/03 For Swinson: Pamela Pepper Issue/Holding: Greater statutory double jeopardy protection afforded drug prosecution under § 961.45 than non-drug prosecution under § 939.71 doesn’t violate equal protection: ¶55. We note that while Wis. Stat. § 939.71 adheres to the dual sovereignty doctrine, Wis. Stat. § 961.45 does not. We… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Trevor McKee, 2002 WI App 148, PFR filed 6/28/02 For McKee: Kenneth P. Casey, SPD, Jefferson Trial Issue/Holding: Drafters of § 939.71 intended to incorporate general principles of law of double jeopardy as then (1953) existed – which includes the “necessary facts” exception (prosecution of greater not barred by conviction of lesser offense where all… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Douglas J. Lasky, 2002 WI App 126, PFR filed 5/1 For Lasky: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The elements of federal bank robbery, 18 USC § 2113(d), and state armed robbery, § 943.32(2), don’t exactly overlap, therefore conviction of former doesn’t bar prosecution of latter under § 939.71. ¶¶18-28… Read More

{ 0 comments }