State v. David Hager, 2015AP330, and State v. Howard Carter, 2015AP1311, petitions for review granted 5/15/17, reversed 4/19/18; review of published court of appeals decisions (Hager) (Carter); case activity (Hager) (Carter) (including briefs)
We’ve posted on these cases a few times. The first time was when the court of appeals certified them (together) to the supreme court. The supreme court refused that certification, so the court of appeals decided them (separately), as we discussed here and here. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Shawn W. Forgue, 2016AP2414-CR, 5/11/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Forgue, convicted of misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct, appealed the circuit court’s decision to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior violent conduct toward him (i.e. McMorris evidence) and her other bad acts. He also appealed an order setting restitution at $269.50 for the victim’s lost wages and $1,000 to the Crime Victim Compensation Program. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Anthony R. Pico, 2015AP1799-CR, 5/10/17, District 2 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 10/10/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 66; case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court granted Pico a new trial on a charge of first degree child sexual assault after concluding Pico’s trial lawyer was ineffective on various grounds. Over a dissent, the court of appeals reverses and reinstates Pico’s conviction. [continue reading…]
{ }
You’ve no doubt heard about digital devices from outfits like Nest or Amazon Echo or Google Home that allow you remotely to control your thermostat or your lights and blinds or take video of the goings-on in your yard or on your porch. Perhaps you’ve also heard about the case in Arkansas in which the prosecution was seeking audio from the defendant’s Amazon Echo to determine if it contained evidence about his culpability for a murder. (If you haven’t, see here and here.) While in that case the data were turned over after the defendant and Amazon dropped their objections, it’s only a matter of time before you have a case where you’ll be wondering whether the Fourth Amendment provides a shield to the data collected by your client’s “smart home” device. This new piece from the Harvard Law Review will give you a place to start developing your litigation strategy.
{ }
That’s what Judicata is saying about its new legal research service. It claims to be “mapping the legal genome.” Read more about it here.
{ }
Ever wonder what they are like? Check out this new report on two such centers in Georgia. Warning: Viewer discretion advised.
{ }
Such a popular topic! a new paper, by Jordan Hyatt of Drexel University, and Steven Chanenson of Villanova University School of Law, surveys judges and stakeholders across the nation. Read it here.
{ }
