Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Whether Wis. Stat. § 301.45(5)(b)1, which mandates lifetime sex-offender registration where a person has been convicted of a sex offense “on 2 or more separate occasions,” applies when a person’s only eligible convictions are entered on multiple guilty pleas in the same case. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

SCOW to address validity of Marsy’s law

Wisconsin Justice Initiative v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2020AP2003, certification granted 2/17/22; case activity

In 2020, Wisconsin voters ratified Marsy’s law, a proposed amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution, which significantly expanded the rights of crime victims often at the expense of defendants’ rights. The Dane County Circuit Court declared the law invalid due to defects in the ballot question presented to voters.  The Wisconsin Election Commission appealed. On certification by the court of appeals, SCOW has agreed to review the matter. The issues are set forth in the certification.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2020AP32, petition for review of a published decision granted 1/11/2022; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from the petition):

Whether the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard in determining that admission of DNA evidence in violation of [Thomas’s] right of Confrontation was harmless?

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that [Thomas’s] confession to a sexual assault was corroborated by a significant fact? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v.  Larry Jackson, 2020AP2119-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted   1/11/22; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (derived from Jackson’s petition for review):

When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial lawyer’s failure to investigate alibi witnesses, and the State responds that these witnesses have credibility issues, may the circuit court deny the defendant’s claim without a Machner hearing where the alibi witnesses testify?

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Christopher D. Wilson2020AP1014-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision granted 11/17/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented (from the petition):

Did the police have implicit license to enter the backyard of Mr. Wilson’s home through a gated privacy fence? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2019AP2184-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision granted 11/18/21 ; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented (from the petition):

Whether the ‘Oath’ requirement under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution require a police officer to swear an oath to the truthfulness of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant to conduct an evidentiary blood draw in a criminal OWI matter? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 1 comment }

State v. X.S., 2021AP419, review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion, granted 10/18/21, case activity

Issues:

1. Whether the court of appeals erroneously exercised its discretion in denying “Xander’s” motion for reconsideration less than 24 hours after it was filed without any explanation?

2. Whether a juvenile who stipulates to the prosecutive merit of a delinquency petition is estopped from presenting any evidence to contradict factual averments in the petition even when those facts do not negate probable cause for the charged offense?

3. Whether the court of appeals erroneously applied the discretionary standard of review?

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Richard Michael Arrington, 2019AP2065, review of a published court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21, case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the state’s PFR; response here):

Did Arrington prove that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the CI’s recordings and testimony on Sixth Amendment grounds?

Did Arrington prove that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }