Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

J. Verdicts

State v. Kieuta Z, Perry, 2019AP270-CR, 5/12/20, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The State charged Perry with armed robbery and 1st degree recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon both as a party to a crime, along with possession of a firearm by a felon. During cross-exam a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Ramos v. Louisiana, USSC No. 18-5924, 2020 WL 1906545, 4/20/20, reversing State v. Ramos, 231 So. 3d 44 (La. Ct. Apps. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) The holding in this case has no relevance to Wisconsin practitioners, or indeed anyone outside of Louisiana or Oregon–the only two jurisdictions permitting 10-2 guilty… Read More

{ 2 comments }

State v. Corey Stauner, 2019AP81-CR, District 3, 3/10/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) This seems wrong. The State charged Stauner with resisting an officer and bail jumping for committing that crime. The jury acquitted him of resisting an officer but found him guilty of bail jumping. The court of appeals recognized… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Marwan Mahajni, 2017AP1184-CR, 6/27/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Mahajni moved for a new trial because, during deliberations in his case, the bailiff told the jury that they could not deadlock. They had to reach a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty. The circuit court denied Mahajni’s… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Miguel Angel Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, USSC No. 15-606, 2017 WL 855760 (March 6, 2017), reversing Peña-Rodriguez v. People, 350 P.3d 287 (Colo. 2015); Scotusblog page Every state and federal jurisdiction has some version of the “no-impeachment rule,” which, after a verdict is received, bars an aggrieved party from presenting testimony by jurors regarding the jury’s… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Dietz v. Bouldin, USSC No. 15-458, 2016WL3189528 (June 9, 2016), affirming Dietz v. Bouldin, 794 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2015); SCOTUSblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) In a 6-2 decision, SCOTUS holds that a federal district court has limited inherent authority to rescind a jury discharge and to recall the jury for further… Read More

{ 0 comments }

United States v. Lemurel E. Williams, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1194, 4/26/16 Williams is entitled to a new trial because under the totality of the circumstances, the jury’s continued deliberations after an aborted delivery of the initial verdict were impermissibly coercive. The jury returned a guilty verdict but, during the polling of the jurors, the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Question Presented: Most states and the federal government have a rule of evidence generally prohibiting the introduction of juror testimony regarding statements made during deliberations when offered to challenge the jury’s verdict. Known colloquially as “no impeachment” rules, they are typically codified as Rule 606(b); in some states, they are a matter of common law… Read More

{ 0 comments }