by admin
on July 26, 2024
Brown County v. J.D.T., 2023AP2339, 7/23/24, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.D.T. challenges the his commitment under ch. 51 (second and third standards). The COA concludes that the county presented sufficient evidence of dangerousness under the third standard, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., and therefore does not address the second standard. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 26, 2024
In the Wisconsin Lawyer, Retired Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Christopher R. Foley has an insightful piece titled “Left in the Dark: State v. A.G. & Burden of Proof in Involuntary TPR Dispositional Hearings.” The article contains an interesting analysis of the current state of the law, along with some arguments Judge Foley believes have been missing from prior litigation. He also recognizes that these legal developments have been spurred by litigation from public defenders, who he describes as “[n]ever lacking for innovative arguments in zealously advocating for their clients.”
Meanwhile, over at the Court of Appeals, the annual report for 2023 has just been released. The document compiles statistics on the number and type of cases handled by the Court and also includes the latest stats on how long it takes for a case to reach decision–a handy resource if you are trying to advise a client on how long they might realistically be waiting for resolution in a given case.
{ }
by admin
on July 26, 2024
Karl W. Nichols v. Lance Wiersma, No. 22-3059, 7/16/24
In a complicated case that contains many harsh lessons about the standards applicable to habeas petitions, the Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief as the exculpatory value of unpreserved evidence was not “apparent.”
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 22, 2024
In addition to the SCOTUS cases to which we devoted individual posts (Smith v. Arizona, Erlinger v. U.S., U.S. v. Rahimi, Garland v. Cargill), below is a summary of criminal or criminal-adjacent cases decided by SCOTUS in the 2023-24 term that we consider of interest to criminal practice in Wisconsin state courts.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 18, 2024
State v. Jayden Adams, 2023AP218-CR, 7/23/24, District 1 (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25, voluntarily dismissed 3/5/25, case activity
Adams appealed a nonfinal order denying his motion for discovery prior to his Wis. Stat. § 970.032(1) preliminary examination and his motion for reverse waiver to juvenile court. Despite holding that juvenile defendants have a limited right to discovery before a prelim under State v. Klesser, 2010 WI 88, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144, the COA concludes that Adams was not entitled to the discovery he requested in this case. The COA also concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the reverse waiver.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 17, 2024
Portage County v. W.P.R., 2024AP454, 7/11/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying defendant’s request for new counsel in TPR case.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 15, 2024
June brought several interesting criminal-law related cases, including two Fourth Amendment challenges involving THC in our changed legal landscape, a discussion of whether a crime forbidding the impersonation of police is unconstitutional, and a challenge to a conviction for lying on firearm purchase paperwork under the Second Amendment.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 12, 2024
Rodney Lass v. Jason Wells, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 23-2880, 6/26/24
Lass was charged with multiple felony counts after his first trial on misdemeanor domestic abuse charges ended in a mistrial. During state postconviction and appeal proceedings, he raised claims of vindictive prosecution, ineffective assistance, and violation of his 6th amendment rights. The 7th Circuit denied relief as to Lass’s IAC and 6th amendment claims as procedurally defaulted, and rejects the vindictive prosecution claim because the Wisconsin courts already considered and reasonably rejected Lass’s same “fact-based arguments.” [continue reading…]
{ }