by admin
on June 14, 2020
State v. Duanne D. Townsend, 2019AP787, 6/9/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Good news: the court of appeals reversed a circuit court decision denying Townsend’s §974.06 motion without a hearing. Townsend now gets a one on his claims for ineffective assistance of postconviction and trial counsel. Bad news: the court of appeals botched the issue of whether Townsend was denied his 6th Amendment right to determine his own defense under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S Ct. 1500 (2018). As noted in our post on McCoy, SCOW needs to square that decision with Wisconsin case law. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 14, 2020
A group of researchers wanted to find out whether, using brain-imaging technology and AI, they could examine human brain activities and distinguish between an intentional and a reckless state of mind. Given that criminal law punishes defendants more harshly for acting with intent, it’s a good thing the answered turned out to be “yes.” The paper will be published soon in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, but you can read it here.
{ }
by admin
on June 14, 2020
If you handle Chapter 980 cases, you make like this new paper on sexually violent predator laws. It argues that our nation’s SVP laws are a “miserable failure” and that foreign SVP laws based on international human rights law are more effective.
{ }
by admin
on June 14, 2020
Due to COVID-19 courts have been considering large scale prison releases, but usually only for people convicted of nonviolent crimes. Are fears of violent crime recidivism warranted? What does it say about our justice system when we release some inmates but leave others is prisons with large COVID outbreaks? If you’re working on a motion for release this new study published in the Notre Dame Law Review my be helpful.
{ }
by admin
on June 11, 2020
More news on how courts are adapting, or attempting to adapt, to the coronavirus pandemic, and how it’s working, or not working: [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 11, 2020
Waukesha County HHS v. S.S., 2020AP592, District 2, 6/10/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in ordering default judgment for S.S.’s egregious conduct of lying to the court to get her TPR trial adjourned. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Mark J. Bucki, 2020 WI App 43; case activity (including briefs)
[UPDATED POST – Scroll to the bottom for very useful commentary by Chris Zachar. Many thanks to him for sharing his knowledge.]
The headline tells you the only legal proposition you need to take from this soon-to-be-published case: under Daubert, evidence that trained dogs indicated the defendant had been at a particular location, and also that there had once been human remains in other locations, is not subject to a per se rule requiring corroboration before it can be admitted at trial. In a given case, a circuit court could conclude that particular dog-sniff evidence is not sufficiently reliable to come in (with or without corroboration). But Bucki’s argument–that dog-sniff evidence is so inherently unreliable that it necessarily requires corroboration–is rejected. We read the 50-page opinion, so you don’t have to. [continue reading…]
{ }
Juneau County DHS v. C.C., 2020AP438, 6/4/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Courts don’t usually award summary judgment in TPR cases, especially not at the grounds phase where the question is whether the parent abandoned the child. The issue is generally too fact intensive. But here the circuit court found no genuine issue of fact regarding abandonment, and the court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
