by admin
on November 12, 2015
Seifert v. Balink, 2015 WI App 59, petition for review granted 11/4/15; affirmed, 2017 WI 2; case activity (including briefs)
While this case involves a medical malpractice claim rather than an issue of criminal law, On Point thought it worth noting because it will be the first time the Wisconsin Supreme Court will address the admissibility of expert opinion evidence since § 907.02(1) was revamped to adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and, by extension, the interpretation of FRE 702 by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 10, 2015
State v. Jeffrey L. Elverman, 2015 WI App 91; case activity (including state’s brief)
The court rejects all challenges to a conviction of theft of more than $10,000. The issues mostly spring from the state’s use of Wis. Stat. § 971.36(4), which permits, under certain circumstances, the aggregation of multiple thefts into a single count. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 9, 2015
Question presented:
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a) requires a sex offender who resides in a foreign country to update his registration in the jurisdiction where he formerly resided. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 6, 2015
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!”
{ }
by admin
on November 5, 2015
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…]
{ }
by admin
on November 5, 2015
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)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…]
{ }
by admin
on November 5, 2015
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…]
{ }
by admin
on November 5, 2015
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…]
{ }
