by admin
on September 9, 2015
Mark D. Jensen v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1380, 9/8/15, affirming Jensen v. Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013)
At Jensen’s trial for the murder of his wife Julie the State introduced Julie’s handwritten letter to the police, written two weeks before her death, in which she wrote she would never take her life and that her husband should be the suspect if anything should happen to her. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals assumed the admission of the letter violated Jensen’s right to confrontation but found the error harmless. The Seventh Circuit holds that the court of appeals’ decision was an unreasonable application of the Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), harmless error standard, and that the erroneous admission of the hearsay evidence had a substantial and injurious influence or effect in determining the jury’s verdict, thus satisfying the actual prejudice standard under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 9, 2015
State v. Ryan H. Tentoni, 2015 WI App 77; case activity (including briefs)
Tentoni does not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages delivered to another person’s phone and therefore can’t seek to suppress the text messages and other subsequently obtained phone records as fruit of the government’s illegal search of the phone.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 9, 2015
State v. Manuel Talavera, 2015AP701-CR, District 2, 9/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
To justify a warrantless traffic stop based on a violation of § 346.34(1)(b), the officer doesn’t need evidence that a driver’s failure to signal before turning his vehicle actually affected other traffic because the statute simply requires motorists to signal turns whenever “other traffic may be affected by the movement.” Thus, evidence that Talavera failed to signal when there was a (police) vehicle following two car lengths behind him was sufficient to justify stopping him. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 9, 2015
Ozaukee County v. C.Y.K., 2015AP1080-FT, District 2, 9/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Even though the examining psychiatrist opined that C.Y.K. was not substantially incapable of making an informed choice about accepting or refusing medication or treatment, the record as a whole supported the circuit court’s order for involuntary medication and treatment. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 9, 2015
Dear Readers:
Thank you for your patience while we’ve updated On Point. It may seem that we’ve simply changed our look. After all, we’re sporting a new banner and tons of photos of folks explaining why we need public defenders. (Take a look. Their answers are truly inspiring!)
But our real task was to modernize On Point. It has new software, more RAM, and lots of additional features. It automatically adjusts to the size of the screen you are using to read it–whether that’s a desktop, tablet, or smart phone. That means you can read and search On Point in the courthouse. You can also share posts on Facebook, Linked In or Twitter. In fact, if you prefer to receive your news feed on Facebook or Twitter, you can follow On Point that way. (See the “follow us” buttons in the upper left corner.) And if you were frustrated by our Archive page, we’ve attempted to fix those problems.
What hasn’t changed is the content. During our hiatus, star writer, Jefren Olsen, continued analyzing appellate decisions. There are more than 50 new posts–including some about important 7th Circuit decisions. They’re all waiting for you here.
On Point was developed, and is maintained, by lawyers who have no IT training. Given all of its new features, we’re pretty sure it still has some bugs. When you find them, please email us so we can look into them. Thanks for being patient. We hope you like the new On Point!
{ }
by admin
on September 8, 2015
Wayne Kubsch v. Ron Neal, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1898, 8/12/15
After being convicted of murdering his wife, her son, and her ex-husband, Kubsch was sentenced to death. He challenged his conviction and sentence in a federal habeas proceeding on three grounds: (1) the Indiana trial court excluded evidence of a witness’s exculpatory hearsay statement to police; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in seeking admission of the witness’s hearsay statement; and (3) his waiver of counsel and choice to represent himself at the sentencing phase of his trial were not knowing and voluntary. The court, over a dissent by one judge as to the first and second claims, rejects Kubsch’s arguments. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 7, 2015
Myron A. Gladney v. William Pollard, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-3141, 8/26/15
In 2013 Gladney filed a habeas petition challenging his state conviction, which became final in 1999. The district court properly dismissed the petition as untimely because even if the limitations period could have been tolled until Gladney found out about his counsel’s failure to interview a defense witness, his petition would still have been filed well outside the adjusted limitations period. Nor can Gladney satisfy the narrow “actual innocence” exception under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), to disregard the time limits for seeking federal habeas relief. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 7, 2015
United States v. Mariano A. Meza-Rodriguez, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3271, 8/20/15
While aliens who are in the United States without authorization may invoke the protections of the Second Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), which prohibits unauthorized aliens from possessing firearms, is a reasonable regulation of the right to bear arms. Thus, Meza-Rodriguez’s prosecution under the statute doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. [continue reading…]
{ }
