On March 28, 2018, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision: [continue reading…]
When last we wrote about we Brendan Dassey, the 7th Circuit, sitting en banc, had vacated the writ of habeas corpus issued the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dassey has since filed a cert petition in SCOTUS, and numerous organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of it. If you have a case involving a possibly involuntary or false confession (whether by a juvenile or an adult), you might want to take a look at the pro-defense research and arguments presented by the Juvenile Law Center, Professors of Criminal Law and Procedure, Current and Former Prosecutors (seriously), Independent Law Enforcement Instructors and Consultants (yes, them too), the American Psychological Association, and, of course, our heroes at the Innocence Network. Lots of good stuff in these briefs!
State v. Ricardo L. Conception, 2016AP1282-CR, 3/28, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Concepcion pled to 10 counts of possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of his suppression motion because the search of his home was a private-party search, not a government search. It also held that Concepcion’s sentence (9 in, 6 out) was not unduly harsh, and his trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to tell the sentencing court that he is a “hero” of “exemplary character and stature.” [continue reading…]
State v. Dorian M. Torres, 2018 WI App 23; case activity (including briefs)
Dorian Torres’s mother Shelly allowed police into the apartment Dorian was living in with his father, Emilio. The police found Emilio’s body during a search of the apartment, leading to Dorian being charged with homicide. The court of appeals holds the police reasonably relied on Shelly having authority to consent to their entry and search of the apartment. [continue reading…]
State v. Daniel Wilson, 2017AP813-CR, 3/27/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This appeal raises, among others things, a novel issue specific to child sexual assault cases. Is the State actually required to prove the 2nd element of repeated child sexual assault–that at least 3 assaults took place “within a specified period of time” as §948.025(1)(b) plainly states? Or is it relieved of that burden by virtue of various opinions holding that the State does not have to prove the “specifics” of a child sexual assault? [continue reading…]
State v. J.C., 2017AP1783, District 1, 3/27/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.C. pleaded no contest to the continuing CHIPS grounds alleged in the petition for termination of her parental rights. She later argued her plea wasn’t supported by sufficient evidence because, at the fact-finding hearing required under § 48.422(3) for no-contest pleas, there was no evidence the child welfare department made reasonable efforts to provide her with court-ordered services. Applying Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 207 N.W.2d 207, the court of appeals holds that even if the record of the fact-finding hearing was deficient, there was other evidence in the record to make up for it. [continue reading…]
Defense attorneys hear an awful lot about the “importance of finality” in criminal cases–especially at the §974.06 stage of proceedings. What about the victims? What about the waste of additional judicial resources? There must be a stopping point! Do those arguments really make sense if the wrong person was convicted? The latest edition of The Marshall Project highlights data showing that wrongful convictions result in tens to hundreds of thousands of additional felonies and violent crimes per year. The new victims and their families suffer, and criminal justice system spends more resources resolving the new crimes. Finality is good, but only if the conviction is correct.
The latest edition of the Volokh Conspiracy analyzes a recent 12-4 en banc decision by the 6th Circuit decision in which the majority answers the question above “no” based on current precedent. However, a “concurrence dubitante” argues that this conflicts with The Founders’ intent when they drafted the 6th Amendment. Another concurring opinion calls on SCOTUS to change its precedent. A dissent argues that based on the facts of this case, the right to counsel attaches before indictment. This issue seems destined for SCOTUS. Why not preserve it in your client’s case?
p.s. Raise your hand if you know what “concurring dubitante” means.
