Seriously! The public is urged to send cards, gifts and flowers to their favorite lawyers and judges to show their appreciation for their good work. No lawyer bashing allowed today! Read all about it here. On Point can’t send you all flowers, but we do appreciate the challenging, noble work you do day in and day out. #whoneedspublicdefenders? We all do because, as Judge Brown notes (right), “the alternative would be disastrous!”
On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity
Issue (from certification)
Does a defendant’s right to due process prohibit a circuit court from relying on COMPAS assessments when imposing sentence, either because the proprietary nature of COMPAS prevents defendants from challenging the COMPAS assessment’s scientific validity, or because COMPAS assessments take gender into account. [continue reading…]
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by the order granting review)
Whether a sentencing court may rely on a defendant’s illegal immigrant status as a factor in fashioning a sentence; and if such reliance is improper, whether it is structural error or subject to harmless error analysis. [continue reading…]
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity; petition for review; response and cross petition; order granting review
Issues (from Singh’s petition and the State’s cross petition)
Whether the retroactive application of provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 38, which repealed provisions of 2009 Wisconsin Act 28 that gave inmates the opportunity to apply for early release, increases an offender’s penalty and therefore violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions.
If retroactive application of Act 38 in general violated the ex post facto clauses, did Act 38’s change in the procedure for granting release under one of the early release provisions (positive adjustment time, or PAT) violate the ex post facto clauses. [continue reading…]
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Is an elected district attorney a public “employee” who may enjoin the release of records under the open records law because they relate to employee discipline? [continue reading…]
State v. Jamie R. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92; case activity (including briefs)
Answering a question lingering since the Truth-in-Sentencing revisions that took effect in 2003 (TIS-II), the court of appeals holds that a person serving a bifurcated prison sentence for a misdemeanor enhanced under the repeater statute, § 939.62(1)(a), is eligible to petition for a sentence adjustment under § 973.195 after serving 75% of the confinement portion of the sentence. [continue reading…]
State v. Daniel Scott Klinkenberg, 2015AP331-CR, District 4, 11/5/15 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is one of those really fact-specific decisions. The centerpiece of the State’s case against Klinkenberg for retail theft was security camera footage that did not show him concealing merchandise of leaving the store with unpurchased merchandise. Yet the jury convicted, and the court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
The Marshall Project offers an interesting analysis of Foster v. Chatman, a case that SCOTUS on Monday. Hopefully, the decision will give defense lawyers betters tools for proving that the prosecution engaged in racial discrimination during jury selection. Click here for the Marshall Project’s analysis. And here is SCOTUSblog’s report on the actual argument.
