The American Bar Association has some gift suggestions for the lawyer on your shopping list. For the overwhelmed, exhausted lawyer, the Ostrich Pillow forms an excellent barrier to the outside world, enabling a desktop power nap. Or how about a crystal ball so your lawyer can provide the most requested client service? Maybe your lawyer would like Mug Shots–shot glasses bearing the images and rap sheets of America’s famous Prohibition-era criminals. And here’s a sure hit for the public defender in your life: All 32 episodes of season 1 of the acclaimed 1960s t.v. show The Defenders were just released!
How has your judge previously ruled on the type of motion you want to file? Who is the most influential judge on the 7th Circuit measured by citations? Ravel’ says its new court analytic empowers lawyers across the country to make data-driven decisions in their cases. Click here.
According to Ravel’s website, it covers Wisconsin state courts and offer a free 7-day trial. 🙂 Click here.
State v. A.W., 2016AP121 through 125, 12/8/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
When A.W. did not appear for her pretrial and was not reachable by phone, the court entered a default finding as to grounds for a TPR. She moved to vacate that finding, but then withdrew her motion. On appeal, she argued that (1) trial counsel was ineffective for advising her to withdraw the motion to vacate, and (2) the circuit court should have vacated the default so that she could address false information admitted in her case. The court of appeals refused to address the 2nd argument for reasons that penalized A.W. for mistakes her appellate lawyer allegedly made. [continue reading…]
State v. Terry S. Shannon, 2015AP922, 12/7/2016, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Terry Shannon appeals the denial of his Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. He was convicted, at trial, of first-degree intentional homicide; he alleges his trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting that the jury be instructed on second-degree intentional. [continue reading…]
State v. Travis J. Manteuffel, 2016AP96-CR, 12/6/16, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
State v. Elward, 2015 WI App 51, 363 Wis. 2d 628, 866 N.W.2d 756, held it an ex post facto violation to require misdemeanants to pay the $200 DNA surcharge where the law imposing it went into effect after they had committed their crimes. [continue reading…]
State v. Anton R. Dorsey, 2015AP648-CR, District 3, 12/6/16 (per curiam; not citable as precedent or for persuasive value), petition for review granted, 4/10/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 10; case activity (including briefs)
You may not cite this per curiam opinion as binding precedent or for persuasive value in any Wisconsin court, see § 809.23(3)(b), but On Point is telling you about it because the court of appeals concludes that the purported “greater latitude” rule in § 904.04(2)(b)1. is not a codification of the “greater latitude” rule created by case law regarding admission of other acts evidence in child sex cases. While you can’t cite this decision for authority, you may and should use the court’s reasoning for its conclusion to counter the claim of a prosecutor or circuit judge that § 904.04(2)(b)1. codifies a “greater latitude” rule. [continue reading…]
State v. Gerrod R. Bell, 2015AP2667-2668-CR, 12/1/16, District 4 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 3/13/2017, affirmed, 2018 WI 28; case activity (including briefs)
Bell was convicted of sexually assaulting two sisters aged 14 and 17. At trial, the DA told the jury that it couldn’t acquit unless it first concluded that the sisters were lying and unless Bell established a reason for them to lie. On appeal, Bell argued that the DA’s argument violated the principles that the State has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant is presumed innocent, and a defendant has the right not to testify at trial. Bell also asserted ineffective assistance based on his lawyers failure to redact exhibits provided to the jury. [continue reading…]
Washington County v. Daniel L. Schmidt, 2016AP908, District 2, 11/30/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Schmidt makes a three-pronged attack on the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a chemical test, arguing he was seized without reasonable suspicion, arrested without probable cause, and did not improperly refuse a test. The court of appeals rejects each claim. [continue reading…]
