by admin
on December 6, 2015
State v. L.C., 2015AP1460, District 1, 12/4/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating L.C.’s rights to her child T.C. because, as required by § 48.426(3)(c) and State v. Margaret H., 2000 WI 42, 26, 234 Wis. 2d 606, 610 N.W.2d 475, the court considered whether T.C. had substantial relationships with his mother and siblings and whether severing those relationships would harm T.C. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 3, 2015
State v. Glenn T. Zamzow, 2016 WI App 7, petition for review granted, 3/7/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 29; case activity (including briefs)
Relying on precedent predating Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), two judges of the court of appeals hold that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to suppression hearings and that the circuit court could rely on hearsay evidence in denying Zamzow’s motion to suppress. The third judge on the panel dissents, arguing the majority’s conclusion “rests upon a shaky foundation” (¶20) and “continues [the] unfortunate legacy” of pre-Crawford Confrontation Clause jurisprudence (¶23). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 1, 2015
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2015AP591, District 1, 12/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The evidence in the record is sufficient to support an order for involuntary medication under § 51.61(1)(g)4(intro.) and b. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 1, 2015
State v. Davis Kevin Lewis, 2014AP2773-CR, District 1, 12/01/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Lewis (whose first name is itself a matter of dispute, (¶1 n.2)) brings three challenges to his conviction after trial; all are rejected. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 1, 2015
GannettWisconsin.com has posted an extensive study of sentencing in Wisconsin during 2005-2014. Click here for “Scales of Justice or Roulette Wheel?” Investigative reporters extracted data from CCAP and created searchable databases that allow the user to see: (1) on a scale of 1 to 10 how harshly a particular judge sentences for certain crimes compared to other judges in his/her county and in the state, (2) the average sentences imposes for certain types of crime, and (3) how often substitution requests were filed against any given judge in felony cases. The study highlights the startling inequalities in sentencing in Wisconsin and argues that some sort of sentencing commission or guidelines are necessary to improve consistency.
The searchable database can indeed answer the question “how harshly does the judge assigned to your case sentence?”–at least for certain categories of crimes. That’s, of course, very useful information for defense counsel. Given that GannettWisconsin’s database is public, expect clients to use it and ask you about it.
{ }
by admin
on November 29, 2015
State v. Daniel S. Iverson, 2015 WI 101, 11/25/2015, reversing a 1-judge court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Do cigarette butts decompose? Do they “result[]…from community activities”? Those are just two of the burning questions left unanswered (smoldering?) after this blaze of statutory construction. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 29, 2015
The court of appeals’ decision in State v. Herrmann, which held that Wisconsin’s switchblade prohibition can’t be applied to a possession in a person’s home, has been attracting attention around the World Wide Web. Jurist’s Paper Chase has a news item. The Volokh Conspiracy has a post, and some sites focused on the right to keep and bear knives noted the decision, too (e.g., here and here). Onward the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence takes its way, with Wisconsin court decisions in the vanguard (with apologies to McCormick, not to mention Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze and Bishop Berkeley).
{ }
by admin
on November 26, 2015
Chester O’Quinn v. Tom Spiller, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-1836, 11/25/15
The state appellate court reasonably applied Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), the controlling Supreme Court precedent for Sixth Amendment speedy‐trial claims, when it rejected O’Quinn’s claim that the 42-month delay in holding his trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. [continue reading…]
{ }