In November, On Point posted on The Amicus Machine, a study of amicus briefs filed in SCOTUS. Today’s edition of SCOWstats reports on amicus briefs in SCOW: how many are filed, who is filing them, and do they influence the discussion of the issues. Click SCOWstats to learn more.
Note that for criminal appeals Attorney Rob Henak (on behalf of WACDL) and the Remington Center are among SCOW’s “best friends” in that they file a fair number of amicus briefs and the justices engage them. Nice work!
Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2,1/6/17, affirming a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
It’s true. SCOW’s first decision on §907.02(1), which adopted the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony is 134 pages long and includes 4 separate opinions, but don’t despair. It’s not the mess you imagine. Reading the first 3 opinions by Abrahamson (joined by A.W. Bradley), Ziegler (solo) and Gableman (joined by Roggensack) feels like the kids’ game “spot the difference between these pictures.” They are more alike than different. You might even wonder why the 5 of them couldn’t just sign on to 1 majority opinion. Or you might not. Bottom line: 5 justices affirmed the admission of a medical doctor’s expert testimony even though it was based on his personal experience, not science. [continue reading…]
State v. Damion L. Brown, 2015AP2029-CR, 1/4/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Damion Brown’s roommate consented to a search of their apartment after being arrested on suspicion of dealing heroin. Brown raises three challenges to the voluntariness and validity of that consent. [continue reading…]
There is new research to support a racial bias challenge to COMPAS. You may recall that last spring Pro Publica studied COMPAS scores for some 10,000 people arrested for crimes in Broward County, Florida and published its results. It found that black defendants were twice as likely to be incorrectly labeled as higher risk to reoffend than white defendants. And white defendants labeled low risk were far more likely to end up being charged with new offenses than blacks with comparably low COMPAS risk scores. [continue reading…]
Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2016 WI 100, 12/28/16, reversing a summary disposition of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
Before the November 2014 election, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin filed an open records request for videos of two training presentations made by Brad Schimel, the DA running for Attorney General. The Department of Justice denied the request, but a circuit judge ordered the videos to be released, and the court of appeals affirmed that order. In an opinion that will arguably enhance the ability of prosecutors to deny release of their records—or, as the dissent aptly describes it, will dim or even shut out some of the light meant to be shed by Wisconsin’s “Sunshine Law”—a majority of the supreme court holds the videos don’t have to be released. [continue reading…]
State v. Brittanie Jo Palaia, 2016AP467-CR, 12/30/17, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case history (including briefs)
Here we have the latest twist on State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, 306 Wis. 2d 193, 742 N.W.2d 923, which held that an officer who knows only that a moving vehicle is registered to a person with a revoked license has reasonable suspicion for a stop. [continue reading…]
On December 22, 2016, SCOW issued Regency West Apartments LLC v. City of Racine, 2016 WI 99 concerning a tax appeal. Justice Abrahamson filed a dissent which, among other things, sought to inform litigants and lawyers about a procedure the justices us when deciding petitions for review by email. This is what she wrote: [continue reading…]
State v. J.F.K., 2016AP941, District 3, 12/28/16 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Fifteen-year-old J.F.K. confessed to having sex twice with his 17-year-old ex-girlfriend. At the delinquency hearing, the State (1) played his video confession, (2) offered the testimony of a detective who said that police had referred the girlfriend to be charged for having sex with J.F.K., and (3) a JOC showing that the ex-girlfriend had pled guilty to 4th degree sexual assault but, of course, did not name the victim. [continue reading…]
