State v. Eric L. Moore, 2016AP1292-CR, District 1, 10/31/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Moore’s right to confrontation wasn’t violated by the admission of the recording of a 911 call about an incident in which Moore was alleged to have committed battery against A.J. Nor was Moore’s lawyer ineffective for deciding not to elicit information that A.J. later recanted that allegation of battery. [continue reading…]
On October 27, 2017, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision:
State v. Guy S. Hillary, 2017 WI App 67 (anonymous, barely corroborated tip was sufficient to establish probable cause to search home)
The Marshall Project recently reported on a study of over 30,000 plea deals in misdemeanor cases in Wisconsin. It found that white people were 74% more likely than black people to have all charges carrying potential prison time dropped, dismissed or reduced. Read more here.
These days it seems there’s an algorithm for almost every stage of litigation. Voltaire combs public records about and social media posts of prospective jurors for information to help predict how they will vote in your case. Wouldn’t that be handy during voir dire? But what if the prosecution had it and the defense didn’t? Would that be a level playing field? Read about Voltaire here.
It’s called “Clerk,” Right now it’s only available in California. But Peter Thiel plans to expand it to other state and federal jurisdictions soon. Read about it here.
He’s keeping his word. Judge Posner has started representing pro se litigants. He has also started a new law firm so far comprised of non-attorneys, including a former cocaine addict who did time and has become an expert on prison conditions. Click here for the Chicago Tribune article.
Speaking of algorithms, the New York Times recently published this op-ed on the Loomis case, machine learning, and the use of algorithms in the criminal justice system.
Waushara County v. B.G., 2017AP956, 10/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
When the circuit court entered a protective services order for B.G., it did not include any conditions or labels such as “temporary” or “conditional.” It did, however, state that B.G. “does not meet the standards for protective placement.” When B.G. tried to resist services, the County filed a “Notice of Transfer of Protective Placement” asking the circuit court to remove him from his home and place him in a facility. The court did as asked. The court of appeals now reverses. [continue reading…]
