State v. K.G., 2015AP245, District 1, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
K.G.’s stipulation to the failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility ground alleged in the TPR petition was valid even though K.G.’s later statements during the disposition hearing suggest he misunderstood what the state would have to prove to establish that ground for termination. [continue reading…]
Is there a new Fourth Amendment “plane” view doctrine in the offing? Eugene Volokh highlights a state high court decision invalidating a helicopter flyover search that kicked up dust and damaged the home. Already on the horizon: smaller, cleaner, and ever more available drones (including the weaponized ones).
Speaking of the Fourth Amendment, data from North Carolina, which collects the most detailed information about traffic stops, documents a wide racial divide in policing.
A pound of flesh—or in an Alabama courtroom, a pint of blood. And: On the subject of costs and fees, the FCC does something about the exorbitant cost of inmate phone calls. More here and here.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics: Texas discovers its probability statistics for cases involving mixed DNA are outdated, prompting review of hundreds of cases. More here.
Dogs: Not just for alerting on drugs anymore. An Ohio court of appeals decision rejects a defendant’s claim that his right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court erred by allowing the victim in a child sexual assault case to testify while a companion/therapy dog named Avery II rested at her feet.
It turns out it’s not just criminal defendants who try to illegally import drugs.
And speaking of drugs, here’s some free ethical advice: Don’t adamantly deny your client is using drugs and then, after the court orders a drug test, buy your client “detox” shampoo to avoid a positive result. News article here; disciplinary decision here.
State v. B.A.H., 2015AP1256-FT, District 4, 10/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While restitution is a possible disposition in a proceeding involving a juvenile in need of protection or services (JIPS), it can only be ordered when there has been a finding a finding the juvenile committed a delinquent act. Because there was no such finding in the JIPS case involving B.A.H., the juvenile court had no authority to order restitution. [continue reading…]
Sauk County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP898 & 2015AP899, District 4, 10/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A.C.’s trial lawyer was not ineffective for failing to take steps to exclude evidence about the termination of A.C.’s rights to a child in a prior case and about her parenting conduct toward that child and another child. [continue reading…]
State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2015 WI App 88, petition for review granted, 3/7/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 15; case activity (including briefs)
Addressing a question left open by State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50, 363 Wis. 2d 633, 866 N.W.2d 758, the court of appeals holds that the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws does not bar the mandatory imposition of a DNA surcharge for a single felony conviction based on conduct that was committed before the mandatory DNA surcharge requirement took effect. [continue reading…]
State v. Courtney E. Sobonya, 2015 WI App 86; case activity (including briefs)
Sobonya launched a creative challenge to the denial of her §973.015 request for expungement. The court had held that while she would benefit from expungement, society would be harmed by the reduced deterrent effect of her sentence. So Sobonya moved for sentence modification based on an expert report showing that the public safety is best served by removing the barriers that convicted offenders face when trying to reintegrate into society. [continue reading…]
X.J. v. G.G., 2015AP1549, District 3, 10/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Under § 48.42(1), an adoptive parent may join the biological parent in a petition to terminate the parental rights of the other biological parent, and because joining the petition makes the adoptive parent a party, the adoptive parent is not subject to sequestration as a witness. [continue reading…]
Speaking of Padilla (see below), yesterday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in Dimaya v. Lynch that “the definition of a ‘crime of violence’ – one of over thirty categories of convictions that constitute an ‘aggravated felony’ under federal immigration law – is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.” Click here to see the ImmigrationProf Blog post about the decision and what it could mean for those of you defending immigrants.
