Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Important Posts

Winnebago County v. C.S., 2016AP1982, 3/27/19, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity C.S., a mentally ill prisoner committed pursuant to §51.20(1)(ar), challenged the constitutionality of §51.61(1)(g) on its face and as applied because it allowed the government to medicate him against his will without finding him dangerous first. In a published decision, the court… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Randall Mathena, Warden v. Lee Boyd Malvo, USSC No. 18-217, certiorari granted 3/18/19 Question presented: Montgomery v. Alabama, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)), held that the new constitutional rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Did the the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals err in… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Kansas v. Garcia, USSC No. 17-834, certiorari granted 3/18/19 Questions presented: 1. Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) expressly preempts the States from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number, in a prosecution of any… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Kahler v. Kansas, USSC No. 18-6135, certiorari granted 3/18/10 Question presented: Do the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to abolish the insanity defense? Decision below; USSC docket; Scotusblog page As Scotusblog explains, Kahler was convicted of killing his, wife, kids, and his wife’s grandmother, and he was sentenced to death. His lawyers argued… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Evangelisto Ramos v. Louisiana, USSC No. 18-5924, certiorari granted 3/18/19 Question presented: Whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict? Decision below: State v. Ramos, 231 So.3d 44 (La. App. 2017) USSC Docket Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) Close on the heels of its decision incorporating… Read More

{ 1 comment }

State v. Joseph B. Reinwand, 2019 WI 25, 3/19/19, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs) The Confrontation Clause ordinarily bars the admission of testimonial statements of a witness if the witness does not appear at trial to testify and be cross-examined. But under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine, a witness’s… Read More

{ 1 comment }

State v. Zachary S. Friedlander, 2019 WI 22, 3/12/19, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs) State v. Magnuson, 2000 WI 19, 233 Wis. 2d 40, 606 N.W.2d 536, laid down a bright-line rule for determining whether a person was in “custody” for purposes of earning sentence credit. The supreme court… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Timbs v. Indiana, USSC No. 17-1091, February 20, 2019, reversing State v. Timbs, 84 N.E.3d 1179 (Ind. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) “The question presented: Is the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause an ‘incorporated’ protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?” The answer: Yes. Like the Eighth… Read More

{ 0 comments }