You’ve heard this one before. Here’s our post on the court of appeals decision, which struck down the unconscious-driver provisions of the implied-consent statute but nevertheless declined to suppress the blood draw results under the good-faith doctrine. Perhaps you imagined the matter resolved, particularly given that after several failures to decide the question, SCOW had begun declining the court of appeals’ certification requests on the topic. No such luck. [continue reading…]
Issues for review (from the State’s Petition)
1. Was Johnson entitled to a jury instruction for perfect self-defense based on his testimony concerning his motivation for trespassing with a loaded firearm in KM’s house, despite the fact that KM was unarmed, shot five times, and Johnson could not recall anything about the shooting other than that KM “lunged” at him?
2. Was Johnson entitled to submission of the lesser-included offense of second-degree reckless homicide under the above circumstances?
3. Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in excluding evidence of alleged child pornography Johnson found on KM’s computer before he killed KM?
We wrote about this case less than a month ago, when the court of appeals issued its certification to the supreme court. Now the certification is granted, so SCOW will have a chance to deal with the inconvenient fact that our state’s cases permit police to seize people without reasonable suspicion in order to verify their identities. [continue reading…]
Wisconsin Statute § 941.20(1)(3) provides whomever goes armed with a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The consumption of alcohol may lead an individual to become under the influence of an intoxicant, but the consumption of alcohol is not prohibited. The question presented is: Does the consumption of a legal intoxicant void the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense?
Do the following facts contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity: a brief encounter in a car between two or more people, an officer’s belief that one or more of those people is a known drug user, the time of day or night, and the car’s headlights turning off right before the encounter and turning back on right afterward?
The issue presented tells you everything you need to know about this one. In the court of appeals, the state said publication wasn’t even merited because the case required only the application of established legal principles to a particular set of facts. But then the court of appeals went and applied those principles in a way the state didn’t appreciate. So, it filed a petition tacitly invoking the unwritten and most salient criterion for review: “the state lost!” It worked.
Is an adjourned probable cause hearing under ch. 980 a “preliminary contested matter” that terminates litigants’ opportunity to request judicial substitution?
During a post-polygraph interview, police repeatedly referenced Vice’s polygraph test results and failed to inform him that the results would be inadmissible in court. Did the court of appeals give undue weight to these factors in assessing the voluntariness of Vice’s confession to sexual assault of a four year old?
Whether an appeal from a Wis. Stat. §51.20(1)(am) recommitment order may properly be dismissed as moot.
Whether the County met its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. R. was currently dangerous as required by Wis. Stat. §51.20(1)(am).