Quite possibly, yes. Learn more in this new article by a couple of Harvard professors.
J.M.A. appeals his recommitment under ch. 51. He argues the psychiatrist who was the sole witness at his trial provided only conclusory testimony on dangerousness; the court of appeals disagrees. Read more
On November 20, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:
State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60 (a riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle for purposes of the OWI statute)
State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61 (the 72-hour filing deadline for a petition to revoke NGI conditional release is mandatory)
State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2019 WI App 63 (state not required to have expert opinion on risk at ch. 980 discharge hearing).
Here is a story about a lawyer whose pants ignited during his closing argument at a criminal arson trial. He rushed from the courtroom to extinguish the flames and denied that he had staged a stunt. He faces possible discipline.
The 5th Amendment is an invincible shield against takings claims but not against self-incrimination and double jeopardy claims. And, of course, the justices political leanings influence their positions. Click SCOWstats for the justice-by-justice analysis.
See The Atlantic‘s new article, “The Repurposing of the American Jail” here.
All TPRs are sad. But this one really highlights the Catch 22 that poverty can create for a parent. Z.J., mother of 4, was struggling with drug and alcohol abuse. The State sought to terminate her parental rights for these and other reasons. But the real issue is whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it entered a default judgment against her at the grounds phase. Read more
V.A. petitioned to terminate the parental rights of her child’s father, M.W.P., who pled no contest to abandonment. M.V.P. argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in ordering termination because it failed to dismiss the proceeding or give sufficient weight to the fact that V.A.’s husband, M.A., confronted the child’s GAL about his recommendation against termination, telling the GAL he’d “have blood on his hands.” (¶¶3, 13). No erroneous exercise of discretion here, says the court of appeals. Read more