Racine County DHS v. W.L.J., 2020AP197-198, October 14, 2020, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Good news for defense lawyers in TPR cases. The court of appeals means business. This is the third time in less than a year that it has reversed a termination of parental rights order due to a circuit court error on the question of whether a parent “abandoned” his or her child. [continue reading…]
According to this fact sheet on disparities in youth justice, Wisconsin has made significant efforts to reduce youth arrest and incarceration rates. Sounds good until you drill down to see that in Wisconsin the disparities between Black and white youths in the justice system is greater than in every other state of the country except New Jersey. The report attributes our dubious distinction to: (1) racial bias in the court system, (2) police policies that penalize Black youths for crimes that are just as likely to occur among white youths, and (3) automatic adult court transfers for crimes that disproportionately affect Black youths.
State v. Michael J. Pierquet, 2009AP2099-Cr, 10/14/20, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Pierquet of operating a motor vehicle with a Prohibited Alcohol Content. He argued that the circuit court erred in admitting the results of his blood test and in giving them prima facie effect because the State failed to prove that the analyst who performed the test possessed a valid permit for alcohol testing. The court of appeals disagreed because an employee of the State Lab of Hygiene testified that all of the analysts at the Lab hold a valid alcohol analysis issued by the state. [continue reading…]
State v. C.A.A., 2020AP1194, District 1, 10/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the trial on the petition to terminate C.A.A.’s parental rights, the case manager handling the CHIPS case pertaining to C.A.A.’s child testified that, in her opinion, C.A.A. would not likely satisfy the conditions of return under the CHIPS order within the 9-month period prescribed by § 48.415(2)(a)3. (2015-16) (a requirement eliminated by 2017 Wis. Act 256). (¶6 & ¶9 n.3). The court of appeals holds this was admissible lay opinion testimony. [continue reading…]
At the Atlantic Magazine, commentary on the effect of Covid-19 on the criminal justice system by Jessica Roth at Cardozo Law School.
State v. Manuel Garcia, 2020 WI App 71, petition to review granted, 1/20/21, affirmed by an evenly divided court, 2021 WI 76; case activity (including briefs)
Even if a court suppresses a defendant’s voluntary statement because it was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the state may use the statement to impeach the defendant if he or she elects to testify. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971); James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990). The issue in this case is whether this “impeachment exception” allows the state to use the defendant’s statement to “rehabilitate” one of its witnesses. The court of appeals holds it does not: the state may use an illegally obtained statement only to impeach the defendant’s testimony. [continue reading…]
State v. Pedro R. Mendoza, III, 2018AP2325-Cr,10/6/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Mendoza of 1st degree recklessly endangering safety and 1st degree endangering safety when he shot into a car occupied by H.V. and M.M.C. Mendoza claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) seek exclusion of his history with the Latin Kings, (2) seek admission of evidence that H.V. and M.M.C. had previously intimidated witnesses and conspired to falsify testimony; and (3) introduce expert testimony regarding his PTSD to help show that he shot in self-defense. The circuit court ordered a Machner hearing, but denied relief. The court of appeals issued a rare reversal on all 3 ineffective assistance of counsel claims and remanded the case for a new trial. [continue reading…]
State v. Chanler Lee Guyton, 2019AP1409-CR, District 3, 10/6/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Guyton told a social worker for a county social services agency that she and four of her colleagues had violated his rights in a CHIPS proceeding regarding his son. He said he would deal with the matter “with my own hands” and things were “going to turn very tragic” because he would come to their office armed. (¶6). The court of appeals rejects his claim this was insufficient to prove the elements of witness intimidation under § 940.201(2)(a). [continue reading…]
