State v. Johnnie Mertice Wesley, 2015AP590-CR, District 1, 7/6/16 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Wesley asserted his right to remain silent during an initial interrogation, and the detectives stopped questioning him. Detectives approached him two more times to resume questioning, and during the third interrogation Wesley made incriminating statements. The court of appeals holds that the detectives didn’t violate Wesley’s invocation of the right to remain silent by resuming interrogation. The court also rejects Wesley’s claim that he invoked the right to remain silent again during the third interrogation. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. J.M., 2016AP817 & 2016AP817, District 1, 7/6/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence introduced at the fact finding hearing was sufficient to establish both continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility grounds, and the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of T.M.’s children. [continue reading…]
{ }
James R. Todd v. Kess Roberson, 7th Circuit Cout of Appeals Case No. 14-3430, 2016 WL 3568107, 7/1/16
Todd claims his trial lawyer was ineffective for inducing him to plead to a charge carrying a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 60 years in exchange for the state capping its sentencing recommendation at 10 years when there was no such cap. His claim fails because the record shows he understood there was no 10-year cap. [continue reading…]
{ }
Anastazia Schmid v. Steven McCauley, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2974, 2016 WL 3190670, 6/8/16
Because the record discloses Schmid suffers from some sort of mental disability and may have been hindered by counsel’s failure, the district court acted too hastily in dismissing Schmid’s untimely habeas petition; instead it should have appointed counsel and, if necessary, held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Schmid’s deadline was subject to equitable tolling. [continue reading…]
{ }
Eric Blackmon v. Tarry Williams, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3059, 2016 WL 3007212, 5/24/16
Two eyewitnesses to the murder of Tony Cox were shown a photo array and live line-up, and both independently identified Eric Blackmon—a man they did not know—as one of two gunmen who shot and killed Cox. The judge at Blackmon’s bench trial relied heavily on the two eyewitness identifications. (Slip op. at 3-11). While Blackmon’s trial lawyer put on two alibi witnesses, Blackmon alleges he failed to interview and present six additional alibi witnesses. The Seventh Circuit holds this allegation entitles Blackmon to a hearing to take testimony from the missing alibi witnesses and trial counsel. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Mastella L. Jackson, 2016 WI 56, 7/1/16, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals, 2015 WI App 49, 363 Wis. 2d 553, 866 N.W.2d 768; case activity (including briefs)
Despite the “flagrant” and “reprehensible” violations of Jackson’s Fifth Amendment rights by police, the supreme court holds that physical evidence seized based in part on information obtained from those violations should not be suppressed because the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. In the course of this ruling, the court alters Wisconsin’s long-established inevitable discovery standard and refuses to rule out using the doctrine in cases where the police intentionally violate a suspect’s rights. [continue reading…]
{ }
The countdown to SCOW’s final decision this term continues. As of today, there are 9 to go, with 3 scheduled to be released on Wednesday July 6th. One particular case is attracting a lot of national attention: State v. Loomis, which concerns a circuit court’s ability to rely on COMPAS assessments when imposing a sentence. In May, Pro Publica published an exposé on COMPAS and paid special attention to Loomis. Ten days ago Loomis made the New York Times. And on July 1st it claimed the first 4 minutes of Science Friday with Ira Flatow.
{ }
Rashaad A. Imani v. William Pollard, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3407, 2016 WL 3434673, 6/22/16
Imani tried to exercise his right to self-representation under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), but the Wisconsin trial judge prevented him from doing so. In State v. Imani, 2010 WI 66, 326 Wis. 2d 179, 786 N.W.2d 40, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the trial judge properly found Imani wasn’t competent to represent himself and that he hadn’t made a knowing and voluntary choice to represent himself. The Seventh Circuit now holds that even under the stringent standard for federal habeas relief, SCOW’s decision was wrong, and Imani is entitled to a new trial. [continue reading…]
{ }
