by admin
on June 11, 2015
L-R: Jeff Fisher, Hannah Schieber Jurss (SPD), Jeremy Perri (SPD Appellate Division Director), Tim Muth (Reinhart shareholder)
On June 9th, Professor Jeff Fisher from Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic led a day-long workshop for the State Public Defender’s Appellate Division at the law firm of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. The workshop focused on strategies for obtaining and opposing review by the United States Supreme Court. Fisher clerked for Justice Stevens and has argued 27 cases to SCOTUS, including Crawford v. Washington, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and California v. Riley–groundbreaking cases that affect our daily work. So Appellate Division lawyers were eager to hear his insights on how SCOTUS operates and how to persuade the justices to grant petitions for writ of certiorari. Click here to learn more about his strategies. And click here and here to see how his clinic used those strategies in recently-filed cert petitions.
The road to SCOTUS begins in the circuit courts. So, dear trial lawyers, this post offers a virtual gift bag for you too! Professor Fisher has been tracking cert-worthy issues relating to the Confrontation Clause and to the 4th Amendment and digital privacy. Click here and here for his meticulous outlines (with tons of case cites) on these subjects and then start preserving those issues in your trial court motions! Your appellate lawyers will love you for it. 🙂
{ }
by admin
on June 10, 2015
State v. Lance Donelle Butler, Jr., 2014AP1769-CR, District 1, 6/9/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Using cell phone tower data provided by Butler’s cell phone service provider to make a map of where Butler had used his cell phone on the day of the crime didn’t require “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” under § 907.02(1); thus, the police officers who created the map didn’t need to be qualified as experts under the statute and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 10, 2015
State v. Amelia A., 2015AP630 & 2015AP631, District 1, 6/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While the order extending the placement of Amelia’s children outside of her home did not specifically recite the conditions she needed to meet for the return of her children, the extension order specifically incorporated by reference the original CHIPS order, which did recite the conditions Amelia had to meet for return of the children and warned that failing to meet the conditions could result in termination of her parental rights. Thus, Amelia received the notice required under §§ 48.356(2) and 48.415(2)(a)1. and Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 607 N.W.2d 607.
[continue reading…]
{ }
No, it’s not your imagination. Supreme Court of Wisconsin opinions have ballooned in recent years. The latest post on SCOWstats.com shows just how much they’ve sprawled, which justices are most prolix, and which are the pithiest. (Spoiler alert: Thank you, Justice Bradley. And keep up the good work, Justice Crooks!)
If, as Shakespeare wrote, “brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,” what are we to conclude?
Perhaps wit is not the goal.
{ }
Ozaukee County DHS v. J.R. and S.R., 2804-2809, 6/3/15, District 2 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket
Sec. 48.21(7) allows the circuit court to dismiss or informally dispose of a CHIPS petition, if doing so would be in the best interests of the child and the public. The court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of several CHIPS petitions in this case because the children at issue were not in custody. The statute, said the court of appeals, applies only to children who are in custody.
[continue reading…]
{ }
Ozaukee County v. Michael T. Sheedy, 2015AP172, 6/3/15, District 3 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
Sheedy was arrested for OWI and refused to submit to a blood test. A few weeks later, the circuit court entered a default judgement against him. On appeal, Sheedy, pro se, argued that he in fact wrote to the circuit court and asked to reopen his case within the 10 days required by §343.305(2). His appeal failed.
[continue reading…]
{ }
Kenosha County v. James H., 2014AP2945, 6/3/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for case activity
James was diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia and hospitalized many times. He appeal an order extending his involuntary commitment and argued, unsuccessfully, that the county failed to present evidence of recent acts of violence against others and insufficient evidence that he would become dangerous if treatment were withdrawn. [continue reading…]
{ }
