by admin
on March 3, 2020
State v. Lance L. Black, 2019AP592, 3/3/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Black’s first trial ended in a hung jury. When the state said it would try him again, he made a fuss–swearing and pounding on a table. At his second trial, Black again erupted (twice), was removed from the courtroom, and refused to return. His counsel requested a competency evaluation, which the court permitted, though with apparent reluctance. After the examiner found Black incompetent, the court disagreed with her, finding him competent and continuing the trial to (guilty) verdicts. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 1, 2020
State v. A.A., 2020 WI App 11; case activity
Wisconsin Stat. § 938.355(6)(d)1. sets a maximum length of “not more than 10 days” for a custody sanction that a circuit court may impose on a juvenile who has violated a dispositional order. Is that 10 calendar days? Or, as the state argues, does “day” mean 24 consecutive hours, so that the maximum sanction is 10 consecutive 24-hour periods? It’s a calendar day, essentially, holds the court of appeals.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 1, 2020
Demonta Antonio Hall v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2020 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)
In a decision that will certainly benefit some people who were arrested for a crime but never charged, the court of appeals orders the Department of Justice to expunge its records showing Demonta Hall was arrested for two felony offenses that were never prosecuted.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 28, 2020
State v. Brantner, 2020 WI 21, 2/25/20, affirming in part and reversing in part a summary order, 2018AP53; case activity (including briefs)
Brantner was arrested (for reasons unrelated to this case) in Kenosha County by Fond du Lac County detectives. They took him to jail in Fond du Lac, where a booking search revealed several different types of pills concealed in his boot. He was tried, convicted and sentenced in Fond du Lac on five counts of drug possession and five associated bail-jumping counts. The supreme court now rejects his argument that he didn’t “possess” any of the drugs in Fond du Lac County–that the arrest in Kenosha terminated his possession because he lacked control over the pills. But it agrees with him that his conviction on two of the counts (with their associated bail-jumping counts) is a double-jeopardy violation; the bare fact that he had pills with two different oxycodone dosages (5 and 20 milligram) will not support two different charges of possessing that drug.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 28, 2020
On February 26, 2020, the court of appeals ordered publication of three decisions; none of them are in a criminal law related case.
{ }
by admin
on February 27, 2020
State v. Rosalee M. Tremaine, 2016AP1963-CR, 2/27/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped Tremaine for a traffic violation and called another car to bring some warning forms. While the officer was filling them out, another officer arrived with a dog. The first officer handed Tremaine the forms, but did not allow her to leave. Then the third officer conducted a sniff, which led to a search of Tremaine’s purse revealing marijuana and a pipe. Defense counsel filed a suppression motion, but made the wrong argument. The court of appeals now finds him ineffective. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 27, 2020
SCOW issued an important Chapter 51 decision today. In Waukesha County v. J.J.H, Appeal No. 2018AP168 a young, deaf woman argued that the circuit court denied her due process right to sign language interpreters for her Chapter 51 probable cause hearing. The court of appeals held the matter moot and said it was unlikely to recur even though it knew that this was the 2nd time in 3 days she had been denied interpreters for a court hearing. According to the court of appeals, if J.J.H. wanted interpreters, then she should have waived her due process right to a hearing within 72 hours. J.J.H. petitioned for review, and SCOW took the case. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 27, 2020
In the old days, SCOW issued fairly pithy, unanimous decisions. Not any more. SCOWstats’ most recent post compares the supreme courts of Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan and finds that SCOW issues far more separate opinions than the neighboring supreme courts do. Click here. Do these splintered opinions provide helpful guidance to the bench and the bar or confuse matters? Only you can say.
{ }
