by admin
on November 16, 2016
State v. Brenda S. Webster, 2016AP225-CR, District 3, 11/15/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
M.P., the complaining witness at Webster’s trial, for robbery of a grocery store, spoke only Spanish, so she testified through an interpreter. On three occasions the interpreter mistranslated M.P.’s testimony. The court of appeals holds the interpreter’s mistakes, considered individually or together, weren’t sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 16, 2016
SCOTUSblog has named a cert petition filed by the Maryland Public Defender “petition of the day“!! Here are the issues:
1. Under the exception to the warrant requirement announced in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343 (2009), permitting a vehicular search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle,” what quantum of particularized suspicion is required by the Fourth Amendment to justify the search?
2. May the unquantified experience of the arresting officer, alone, supply the necessary particularized suspicion to justify the vehicular search?
Wisconsin, which has trimmed the Fourth Amendment down to more like a Three and a Half Amendment, follows a per se rule requiring no particularized suspicion. See State v. Smiter, 2011 WI App 15. Under this rule, a belief is reasonable, and an officer may search a vehicle, when the recent occupant’s offense of arrest is a non-traffic infraction that could generate physical evidence. On Point will keep you posted on this petition.
Here’s hoping our Maryland comrades get their cert petition granted–even (or especially) without an amicus brief! See post below.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 16, 2016
If you dream of arguing a case to SCOTUS, this new study may dash your hopes. It suggests that SCOTUS doesn’t seriously consider cases that lack an “amicus wrangler” (someone to recruit the right amici) and an “amicus whisperer” (someone to coordinate the wrangled amici’s messages). Just one amicus brief by any ole lawyer won’t do the trick. Think several amici–each one represented by a member of a select group of SCOTUS specialists. Turns out they shape the court’s docket more than anyone. The authors attempt to defend this clubby practice as being very helpful to the modern court. See if they persuade you.
{ }
by admin
on November 16, 2016
State v. Isiah O. Smith, 2015AP1645-CR, 11/15/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Two guys walk into an apartment complex and leave a short time later. One carried a gun and a cell phone; the other a cell phone. They got into a car belonging to a friend of the guy carrying only the cell phone and drove off. A surveillance video captured these movements but not the shooting death that occurred in the complex at about the same time. Was there sufficient evidence to convict the guy holding just the cell phone of 2nd degree reckless homicide as a party to a crime? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 9, 2016
State v. Tydis Trinard Odom, 2015AP2525-CR; District 2, 11/9/16; certification refused 1/9/17; case activity (including briefs)
Issue:
Does the imposition of multiple DNA surcharges constitute “potential punishment” under WIS. STAT. § 971.08(1)(a) such that a court’s failure to advise a defendant about them before taking his or her plea establishes a prima facie showing that the defendant’s plea was unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 9, 2016
Sheboygan County v. J.L.H., 2016AP461, District 2, 11/9/16;(1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This case raises an issue now pending in SCOW: what makes someone a “proper subject for treatment” under §51.20(1)? J.L.H. has schizophrenia, intermittent explosive disorder, and a mental disability. There is no dispute that he is mentally ill and dangerous to himself. The question is whether he is “proper subject for treatment” given that medication only controls his symptoms; it does not treat his illness. According to the court of appeals . . . [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 9, 2016
Winnebago County v. J.M., 2016AP619, District 2, 11/9/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 5/15/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 37; case activity
J.M.’s lawyer didn’t secure civilian clothes for him to wear at his ch. 51 recommitment hearing, so he appeared before the jury in his prison greens (sans the shackles, at least; and the stun belt wasn’t visible to the jury). The court of appeals rejects the claim J.M.’s lawyer was ineffective for failing to make a modest outlay at the local Goodwill to purchase J.M. an outfit without the negative stigmata and for failing to ask for a curative instruction. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 8, 2016
City of Appleton v. Jacob Anthony Vandenberg, 2015AP2649, District 3, 11/8/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Because he entered a plea to OWI, first offense, Vandenberg forfeited his arguments that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him for operating while intoxicated or hit-and-run under § 346.69, and the court of appeals declines to disregard the guilty-plea-waiver rule. [continue reading…]
{ }
