Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Donavinn D. Coffee, 2020 WI 1, 1/9/20, 2017AP2292, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Where to begin? Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Kenneth J. Heinrich, 2018AP2124-CR, District 4, 1/9/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Heinrich moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that his bail-jumping charges lacked a factual basis and were multiplicitous. His motion and subsequent appeal failed. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Kody K. Johnson, 2019AP1058-CR, District 4, 1/9/19, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Johnson accepted a negotiated disposition of 3 contempt charges stemming from his interference with child custody. He then moved to withdraw his plea arguing that the charges had no factual basis and were multiplicitous. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Portage County v. L.E., 2019AP1841-FT, District 4, 1/9/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Welcome to another chapter in the Wisconsin saga “once committed, always committed.” L.E. has been under commitment for 25 years. At her most recent recommitment hearing, the County offered a doctor’s testimony that “if treatment were withdrawn she’d become a proper subject for commitment.” What facts supported that legal conclusion?  Well, not what Portage Cty v. J.W.K., 2019 WI 54, seems to require. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Centralized sentencing data would make the administration of justices more fair and transparent. Appellate courts could use the data to ensure that sentences under review are consistent and serve the fundamental purposes of sentencing. Wow! There’s an idea. Read more here. 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Andre David Nash, 2018AP1595-CR, 1/7/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Under Wisconsin law, once a defendant shows that an out-of-court identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive, the State has the burden of demonstrating that the identification was still reliable and should be admitted into evidence. Powell v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 51, 66 271 N.W.2d 610 (1978). In this case, the court of appeal held that the circuit court improperly shifted the burden of proof to the State, and so reversed. Read more

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

He really wanted that name, the Minnesota court of appeals said “no” despite the 1st Amendment. The new name would be misleading and confusing. Read about it here.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Fun facts on SCOW and SCOTUS

Guess which SCOTUS justice Wisconsin’s Supreme Court justices cite most often? Okay. That’s too easy. The answer is Scalia. But do you know which SCOW justice cites Scalia the most? And can you guess the second most frequently cited SCOTUS justice. Find out more fun facts here.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }