by admin
on July 20, 2016
State v. Michael R. Hess, 2015AP2423, 7/20/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication) case activity
A decade after the circuit court entered a default judgment and revoked Hess’s license due to a drunk-driving event, he filed a motion to vacate per §806.07(1)(h). He claimed that he was not served with the notice of intent to revoke required by §343.05 and due process. On appeal Hess prevails in an opinion reaffirming that there is no deadline for filing a motion to vacate a void judgment. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 20, 2016
According to the dissent in State v. Matalonis, Wisconsin’s expansion of the community caretaker doctrine has pretty much swallowed the Fourth Amendment. See our prior post here. If you’re interested in this issue, take a look at the cert petition that Matalonis filed on June 30th. We’ll keep you posted on how it fares.
{ }
by admin
on July 19, 2016
State v. J.T.M., 2015AP1585, 7/19/16, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A detective interrogated 16-year-old J.T.M. while he was in a juvenile residential facility without first giving Miranda warnings. Because J.T.M. was in custody and wasn’t given the warnings, his statement regarding a sexual assault allegation must be suppressed.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 19, 2016
Did you miss the virtual awards banquet for the SCOWstats fantasy league? Don’t worry! SCOWstats honors its league stars in this morning’s post. Click here.
{ }
by admin
on July 19, 2016
State v. V.A., 2015AP1614, 7/19/16, District 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
V.A. presented many issues on appeal, and the court rejected all of them. The most interesting ones concern collateral attacks on CHIPS orders, competency, and whether Wisconsin’s “failure to assume parental responsibility” statute is unconstitutional as applied to V.A. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 19, 2016
OLR v. John Kenyatta Riley, 2016 WI 70, 7/15/16; case activity (including briefs)
Leaving us with another splintered decision as the current term comes to its end, a majority of the supreme court votes to publicly reprimand an attorney for “offering” false testimony from his client and then failing to take reasonable measures to correct the testimony. The precedential value of the opinion is uncertain, and perhaps nil, as there’s no majority rationale for the decision and it involves a previous version of the relevant ethical rule; nonetheless, every lawyer who calls witnesses should be aware of it and contemplate what it might portend. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 18, 2016
The last decision is out, and the numbers are in. SCOW has set some new records. Click SCOWstats to learn about the court’s record-breaking 2015-2016 term.
{ }
by admin
on July 17, 2016
A prosecutor’s exercise of discretion can trigger or avoid collateral consequences for your client. This new law review article analyzes how and why prosecutors make these decisions.
{ }
