by admin
on October 20, 2015
This just in: “The Pressure Is On–Criminal Defense Counsel Strategies after Padilla v. Kentucky,” by Bill Ong Hing at the University of San Francisco Law School. When representing an immigrant defendant, trial counsel’s duties are now much more demanding than they were before Padilla. What qualifies as “competent” counsel in these circumstances? Click here for a new research paper attempting to answer this question. If you don’t have access to SSRN.com, email [email protected], and we will help you get a copy.
Also, Wisconsin’s own Davorin Odrcic just published “Plea Bargaining for Noncitizens: What defense attorneys should know” on the State Bar’s Inside Track. Check out Odrcic’s 2-minute video advice “preventing immigration consequences for non citizens” here.
{ }
by admin
on October 20, 2015
If you are working on a COMPAS issue, you may be interested in a new research paper, “Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing,” from the University of Virginia School of Law. Here is the abstract: [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 19, 2015
The Journal Sentinel is reporting that Justice Rebecca Bradley may participate in cases that were argued, but not decided, before Governor Walker appointed her to SCOW. Click here. She is studying the issue. Justice Geske and NYU law Professor Stephen Gillers see no problem with this idea. Bradley could just listen to oral argument transcripts and then vote. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 16, 2015
La Crosse County HSD v. C.J.T., 2015AP252, District 4, 10/16/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The fact that the County’s attorney handling this TPR proceeding retained the GAL in the case to represent the her in an unrelated personal injury matter didn’t create a conflict of interest that required a new trial. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 15, 2015
SCOWstats has conducted a Politfact-style check on the concerns Justice Abrahamson raised in the order granting review of State v. Salinas. Her claims: (1) the number of cases on SCOW’s docket has dropped significantly; and (2) the number of per curiam court of appeals opinions on SCOW’s docket has jumped significantly. Click here to gauge what her score would be on a “Truth-O-Meter”!
Why is the happening? And more importantly, what does this mean for the State of Wisconsin, which depends on the supreme court to fulfill its “law development” function?
{ }
by admin
on October 14, 2015
Winnebago County v. B.C., 2015AP1192-FT, District 2, 10/14/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying Outagamie County v. Melanie L., 2013 WI 67, 349 Wis. 2d 148, 833 N.W.2d 607, the court of appeals holds the County proved B.C. was incompetent to refuse medication, § 51.61(1)(g)4.(intro.) and b., rejecting B.C.’s arguments that: 1) the record doesn’t document how and when he was advised of advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication; and 2) the evidence doesn’t prove B.C. was incapable of making an informed choice about accepting or refusing medication. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 14, 2015
City of Mequon v. Luke J. Chiarelli, 2015AP359, District 2, 10/14/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
There was reasonable suspicion to stop of Chiarell’s car based on two lane deviations during early morning hours and, based on observations the officer made after the stop, there was probable cause to arrest Chiarelli for OWI. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 14, 2015
Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2014AP2536-FT, District 4/2, 10/14/15 (summary disposition; ineligible for publication, reversed, 2016 WI 100; case activity (including memo briefs)
While this decision is not citable, even for persuasive value, see Rule 809.23(3)(b), On Point thought it newsworthy enough to bring to our readers’ attention. Here’s the genesis of the case: Before the November 2014 election, the Democratic Party filed an open records request for videos of two training presentations made by Brad Schimel, the DA running for Attorney General. The Department of Justice denied the request, but a circuit judge ordered the videos to be released. The court of appeals affirms that order. [continue reading…]
{ }
