by admin
on June 22, 2017
Charles Turner, et al., v. United States, USSC Nos. 15-1503 & 15-1504, 2017 WL 2674152 (June 22, 2017), affirming Turner v. U.S., 116 A.3d 894 (D.C. App. 2015); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
In granting cert in this case the Court told the parties to brief one issue: Whether the convictions of the petitioners must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We thought the case might be the occasion for the Court to say something important about Brady, but that didn’t happen. The Court simply says the issue before it “is legally simple but factually complex” (slip op. at 11), applies the Brady standard without alteration or elaboration, and concludes the convictions stand. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 22, 2017
At its June 21 open rules conference the supreme court addressed pending Petition 17-06 regarding compensation for appointed attorneys. The state bar’s summary is here, while video of the conference is here, with the discussion beginning at about 15:20 into Part 1 of the session. You may want to enjoy this video while you can because it will be one of the last open rules conference you get to see: Later in the meeting the court, by a 5-to-2 vote, passed a motion offered by Gableman (evidently as a late addition to the agenda) to end the practice of holding rules conferences open to the public, starting next term. For video go here and click on Part 2 of the conference, accessible via the link available to the right of the main video for Part 1.
{ }
by admin
on June 22, 2017
State v. Angelo M. Reynolds, 2016AP420-CR, District 4, 6/22/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police had sufficient probable cause to request that Reynolds provide a preliminary breath test under § 343.303. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 22, 2017
State v. Benjamin Schneller, 2016AP2474, 6/22/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Benjamin Schneller was arrested for OWI and refused to submit to a blood draw, so the police got a warrant and took the blood anyway. He argues on appeal that the warrant only authorized the police to draw his blood, and that a separate warrant was required for them to test it. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 21, 2017
State v. Heather L. Steinhardt, 2017 WI 62, 6/21/17, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Steinhardt led her 12 year old daughter to her bedroom so that her husband (the child’s step father) could have sex with her. In fact, Steinhardt sat on the bed while the assault occurred. The majority holds that leading the daughter to the assault and sitting on the bed during the assault are 2 different acts supporting 3 different crimes and punishments. Justice Abrahamson (joined by A.W. Bradley) calls Steinhardt’s crimes “revolting and detestable” but insists the “constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy protect us all, even Heather Steinhardt.” Dissent ¶47. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 20, 2017
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2016AP987, 6/20/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 10/17/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 53; case activity (including briefs)
Sholar was charged with 5 counts of sex trafficking and 1 count of sexual assault. At trial, defense counsel allowed “Exhibit 79”–a 181-page report containing the contents of Sholar’s cell phone, including 1,4000 text messages and photos of girls and women in suggestive poses, to go to the jury. The State concedes that defense counsel performed deficiently, but argued that Sholar was prejudiced only with respect to the sexual assault charge, not the sex trafficking charges. The court of appeals agreed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 20, 2017
State v. Tyshun DeMichael Young, 2016AP657-CR, 6/20/17, District 1; (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Young of attempted 1st-degree intentional homicide and 1st degree recklessly-endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon. On appeal, he argued that the trial court should not have permitted the jury to hear evidence that his younger brother was killed exactly one year prior to the date he allegedly shot the victims in this case. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 20, 2017
McWilliams v. Dunn, USSC No. 16-5295, 2017 WL 2621324 (June 19, 2017), reversing McWilliams v. Dunn, 634 Fed.Appx. 698 (11th Cir. 2015); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
A win for defendants in capital cases. Ake v. Oklahoma “clearly established” that when an indigent defendant demonstrates that his sanity at the time of the offense is to be a significant fact at trial, the State must provide him with access to a competent psychiatrist who will conduct an appropriate (1) examination and assist in (2) evaluation, (3) preparation, and (4) presentation of the defense. Ake did not specifically require the appointment of a defense team expert (as opposed to a neutral expert). It left that issue open, and with this decision SCOTUS leaves the issue open. It does hold, however, that simplest way for a state to satisfy Ake is to prove the defense with its own psychiatric expert. [continue reading…]
{ }
