by admin
on April 21, 2015
State v. Jennifer L. Wilson, 2014AP2358-CR, District 3, 4/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A person’s presence in an area with frequent calls for drug activity and a suspected drug house is not, by itself, enough to justify an investigative stop of the person; the police must have particularized information that the person might be engaged in criminal activity. Police lacked that kind of particularized information in this case, so the stop was unlawful.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 20, 2015
What a difference 18 years makes. In 1995-96, SCOW issued 75 decisions. A whopping 87% of them were unanimous. Abrahamson was in the majority 90% of the time. And the average number of days from oral argument to decision was 86. Now consider last term: 2013-14. SCOW issued just 61 decisions. Only 39% of them were unanimous. Abrahamson was in the majority 39% of the time. And the average number of days from oral argument to decision was . . . 158!
Click SCOWstats for these and other interesting data on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2015
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point):
Did the community caretaker rule authorize police to conduct a “protective sweep” of a home even though the person who needed assistance had already been identified and transported to a hospital for treatment? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 19, 2015
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point):
Do §§ 48.415(2)(a)1. and 48.356(2) require the final CHIPS order filed before a TPR petition warn the parent about grounds for termination and the conditions for return or the child, or is it sufficient that the parent was given “adequate notice” of the grounds for termination and conditions of return during the pendency of the CHIPS proceeding? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 16, 2015
Village of DeForest v. Michael Brault, 2014AP2398, District 4, 4/16/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Brault’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction for OWI 1st is frivolous, so sanctions under Rule 809.25(3) are appropriate.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 15, 2015
State v. Frank D. Roseti, 2014AP2299-CR, District 2, 4/15/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an alleged discovery violation falls short because the defendant does not develop an argument as to why an objection would have prevailed.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 14, 2015
State v. James Richard Coleman, 2015 WI App 38; case activity (including briefs)
Coleman’s trial lawyer was ineffective for telling the jury Coleman would testify when Coleman had never said he intended to testify; for telling the jury that Coleman had a prior criminal conviction; and for failing to impeach the victim’s allegations by eliciting inconsistent statements she made to other witnesses.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 10, 2015
Check out this new study: Gideon by the Numbers: Emergence of Evidence-Based Practices in Indigent Defense by Jennifer Laurin at the University of Texas Law School.
Note to Chapter 980 aficionados: Are men genetically predisposed to commit sex crimes? There’s a new report out on this subject too.
Still reeling from the Badgers defeat in the NCAA finals? Bucky may be 2nd place on the basketball court but he is 1st place–by a long shot–in the court that counts!!!! Check out how your law school alma mater performed in Wisconsin Supreme Court’s version of the NCAAs here!
Do you have an iPad? Then click here to find out how one criminal defense lawyer used it to present his case at a jury trial.
Find a new state-by-state report on incarceration trends here.
{ }
