by admin
on August 27, 2016
Roy L. Ward v. Ron Neal, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 16-1001, 8/26/16
Ward’s trial lawyers weren’t ineffective when they failed to adequately investigate and present readily available mitigating evidence and then, due to lack of preparation, instead presented evidence Ward was a dangerous psychopath. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 25, 2016
State v. Jeremy Wand, 2015AP2344-CR, District 4, 8/25/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals holds that Wand’s postconviction motion for plea withdrawal failed to allege sufficient facts to merit an evidentiary hearing on his claims that his plea was coerced and that his trial lawyers were ineffective by failing to retain certain experts to assist in his defense. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 25, 2016
Darryl J. Sutton v. Randy Pfister, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-2888, 2016 WL 4446561, 8/24/16
Sutton filed a habeas petition challenging his sexual assault conviction on the ground the evidence connecting him with the crime was obtained by the state through a conceded violation of the Fourth Amendment in a different case. The district court ruled in his favor, but the court of appeals holds there’s no Fourth Amendment violation because the evidence would inevitably have been discovered. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 25, 2016
State v. Katherine J. Downer Jossi, 2016AP618-CR, 8/24/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This court of appeals decision acknowledges what On Point predicted here when SCOTUS issued Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). That is, Rodriguez, which held that prolonging a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the traffic infraction, effectively overruled State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, ¶32, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748, which allowed for a reasonable delay based on the totality of the circumstances (a.k.a. the “incremental intrusion” test). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 24, 2016
State v. S.G./Waukesha County v. S.G., 2015AP2138 & 2015AP2139, District 2, 8/24/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
S.G. challenges the revocation of her driver’s license for refusal, arguing the arresting officer didn’t sufficiently convey the implied consent warnings to her. She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for her OWI conviction. Neither challenge succeeds. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 24, 2016
Raymond E. King v. Randy Pfister, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3389, 2016 WL 4446105, 8/24/16
The presiding judge at King’s 2004 murder trial was a former public defender who represented King in a criminal case in 1986. KIng’s pretrial pro se efforts to get the judge recused were rebuffed. After exhausting his state court remedies, King filed a habeas petition arguing his state trial and appellate lawyers were ineffective for failing to litigate a claim that the trial judge should have been substituted from King’s case. The Seventh Circuit rejects the argument. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 23, 2016
Oconto County v. Jonathan E. Van Ark, 2015AP1415, 8/23/16; District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Van Ark was sitting in his parked pickup truck when a deputy approached him, smelled alcohol, saw his glossy, blood-shot eyes, and observed his slow, slurred speech. A subsequent hospital blood draw indicated that Van Ark had a .237 BAC. The State charged him with OWI and operating with a Prohibited Alcohol Concentration and moved for directed verdicts on both counts. The circuit court denied a directed verdict on the OWI charge, but granted it on the PAC charge. The court of appeals reversed based on WIS JI–CRIMINAL 2660A. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 23, 2016
Should people be able to retract uncounseled Miranda waivers elicited by law enforcement officers while they were juveniles? This UCLA law review article by Loyola Law School Professor Kevin Lapp explores the problems with interrogating juveniles and the pros and cons of retractable Fifth Amendment waivers.
{ }