State v. Gerald J. Vanderhoef, 2016AP2052-CR, District 1, 4/30/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Vanderhoef’s silence in response to the “Informing the Accused” form constituted a refusal to consent to a chemical test, so the subsequent blood draw was unlawful. However, the state subpoenaed the results of his urine test, and that evidence was admissible. [continue reading…]
State v. Michael Exhavier Dunn, 2018AP783-CR, 4/30/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).
The lead issues in this appeal are whether the jury pool for Dunn’s trial represented a fair cross section of the community and whether Dunn was denied equal protection when the DA struck 2 of the 3 African-Americans from the 30-person jury pool for his case. [continue reading…]
State v. Mose B. Coffee, 2019 WI App 25; affirmed 6/5/20; case activity (including briefs)
This published decision should make for an interesting petition for review. The court of appeals rejects a prior unpublished opinion, State v. Hinderman, to hold:
¶13 . . . [W]hen an officer lawfully arrests a driver for OWI, even if alcohol is the only substance detected in relation to the driver, a search of the interior of the vehicle, including any containers therein, is lawful because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the offense of OWI might be found. Thus, the search of Coffee’s vehicle in this case was lawful and the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.
Looks like NYU Professor Ann Washington has done the hard work for you. Her new article, How to Argue With an Algorithm: Lessons from the Compass-ProPublica Debate, strives to inform courtroom arguments over the integrity of algorithms used to predict risk during the sentencing process. [continue reading…]
Speaking of algorithms, a few weeks ago SCOWstats ran SCOW’s majority opinions through one called Linguistic Word Inquiry Count to determine which justice used, for example, the biggest or most emotional words or displayed the most analytical thinking, clout and so forth. In this post, SCOWstats applies the same tool to dissenting opinions and finds some surprising results.
Who knew the law librarians at the Library of Congress had their own blog-In Custodia Legis? History lovers will enjoy this post about a writ Lincoln wrote.
Scotusblog’s Amy Howe has published this post about today’s oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which addresses the constitutionality of our implied consent statute’s authorization for taking a blood sample from an unconscious person. A transcript of the argument is here.
Brown County DHHS v. L.F.H., Sr., 2019AP145, District 3, 4/23/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The County filed a petition to terminate L.F.H.’s parental rights based on a continuing denial of his periods of physical placement or visitation with his son, Leon (a pseudonym). The circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment at the grounds phase, but that was error because the County failed to prove the CHIPS dispositional order satisfied the requirements of § 48.415(4). [continue reading…]
