Does a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” as defined under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9)?
How often does On Point say “this is a must see”? Not too often. (Last time was John Oliver’s show on public defenders.) So trust us. You do not want to miss seeing how Bryan Wilson, Texas Law Hawk, markets his criminal defense practice. Click here!
And now for a super fun ethics quiz. Suppose you’re writing a brief challenging a lower court decision. Does calling the appellate panel “three blind mice” and describing a judge as having “served the historical role that Monica Lewinsky played for President Clinton” cross the line? You’ll find the answer here, where you can also read other, more colorful excerpts from one lawyer’s briefs.
What to do with sex offenders after prison. Do they ever get released? Click here for the New York Times story.
If you’re working on a racial profiling issue, you might check out a new paper: “Race and Racial Profiling” here.
“Will crime rise if more people are kept out of prison?” Naturally, there are different perspectives on this issue. See a sampling of them in the New York Times here.
And while we’re on the subject of prison sentences, you might consider this new paper “Saving the United States from Lurching to Another Sentencing Crisis” here.
N.A.H. v. J.R.D., 2015AP1726, 2015AP1727, and 2015AP1728, District 4, 10/29/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (first case number)
The petition to terminate J.R.D.s parental rights set forth sufficient facts to support the allegation that J.R.D. had failed to assume parental responsibility.
[continue reading…]
State v. Joseph William Netzer, 2015AP213, District 4, 10/29/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
¶1 …. Netzer argues on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial, and that the results of his blood tests were impermissibly admitted into evidence. We conclude that Netzer possessed no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding, that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying Netzer’s motion to extend jury demand time limits, and that Netzer has failed to present a fully developed argument on and properly preserve his claims of improperly admitted evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court.
Seriously! Read about Harvard’s ambitious “free the law” project in this New York Times article. By 2017, all case law from around the nation will be free and searchable using (allegedly) more sophisticated techniques than those offered by Westlaw and Lexis (and dare we add flops like Fastcase). This massive effort entails scanning 40 million pages of case law! Why is Harvard doing it? To improve access to justice.
State v. One 2013 Toyota Corolla, 2015 WI App 84; case activity (including briefs)
While a co-owner’s interest in a car didn’t make her the owner for purposes of the “innocent owner” exception to property forfeiture under § 961.55(1)(d)2., forfeiture of her full financial interest violated the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against the levying of excessive fines. [continue reading…]
Paysun Long v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-3327, 10/27/15
Long is entitled to habeas relief because the prosecutor in his state murder trial failed to correct perjured testimony given by a state’s witness. [continue reading…]
State v. Joshua Allan Vitek, 2015AP421-CR, District 3, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, 306 Wis. 2d 193, 742 N.W.2d 923, police may reasonably assume the driver of a car is likely to be the owner, and may stop the car if they know the owner’s operating privileges are invalid. But what if more than one person owns the car, but only one of the owners has an invalid license? The state claims that a traffic stop is still justified by the fact that one of the owners has an invalid license. The court of appeals disagrees, at least when—as in this case—the state presents no evidence as to the number of registered owners and the validity of their operating privileges. [continue reading…]
