Should evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful? [continue reading…]
Maryland v. Kulbicki, USSC No. 14-848 (per curiam) (October 5, 2015) granting cert and reversing Kulbicki v. State, 99 A.3d 730, 440 Md. 33 (2014); SCOTUSblog page
This is a summary reversal of a Maryland Court of Appeal’s decision, which held that Kulbicki’s defense lawyers were constitutionally ineffective back in 1995. A jury convicted Kulbicki of 1st-degree murder for shooting his mistress. The State’s case rested on a Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis, which the scientific community generally accepted then, but doesn’t now. [continue reading…]
Did the Seventh Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a long line of this Court’s decisions by awarding habeas relief in the absence of clearly established precedent from this Court? [continue reading…]
You heard about the Milwaukee County Courthouse selfie, right? So did everyone else in the blogosphere! Click here.
“Why Are Lawyers So Good at Sex?” here. If you’re having a bad day, you will laugh at the really bad puns in this article.
Which SCOTUS opinions are Americans most familiar with? Click here. And, no, Gideon v. Wainwright did not make the top 10!
Where do our immigrants some from? This cool map on the Immigration Professors blog shows state-by-state changes in migration patterns.
Batson has failed. “How Prosecutors Get Away With Cutting Black Jurors” here.
“How to Fight Modern Day Debtors Prisons.” See what The Marshall Project suggests here.
Dane County v. T.B., 2015AP799. 10/1/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
T.B. sought to vacate an order for a Chapter 51 commitment on the grounds that the circuit court lost competency to proceed when it failed to make a verbatim record of his probable cause hearing per Wis. Stat. §51.20(5). According to the court appeals, SCR 71.01(2)(a) excepts from the reporting requirement proceedings before a court commissioner that may be reviewed de novo, which includes probable cause hearings.
Here, the probable cause hearing was held by a court commissioner, and under WIS. STAT. § 757.69(8), the court commissioner’s decision shall be reviewed de novo by the circuit court upon a motion by T. B. or the County. Accordingly, the probable cause hearing was a “proceeding before a court commissioner that may be reviewed de novo,” and was excepted from the reporting requirement in WIS. STAT. § 51.20(5) under SCR 71.01. Thus, T. B. is not entitled to a verbatim record of the probable cause hearing before the court commissioner, and the circuit court did not lose competency to adjudicate this case. Slip op. ¶12.
Here’s a queer bit of reasoning. T.B. pointed out that requiring him to request a 2nd probable cause hearing before the circuit court in order to obtain a verbatim record is impractical and unmanageable in light of the circuit court’s limited resources. The court of appeals response? “T.B. fails to explain why the asserted effect on the circuit courts’ workload matters.” Slip op. ¶13.
T.B. also argued that §757.69(8) doesn’t apply because the timeline specified in §51.20(7) sets a specific timeline for only one probable cause hearing, not two. According to the court of appeals, “§51.20(7) does not specifically limit the availability of a second probable cause hearing. Therefore, §51.20(7) does not preclude a request for a de novo hearing under §757.69(8).” Slip op. ¶15.
Hey, Chapter 51 counsel, are you thinking what we’re thinking? Request a 2nd de novo hearing in every single case and let’s see how long it takes to get courts to change their tune. 🙂
State v. Barbara J. Thiry, 2015AP863-CR, 10/1/15, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Here’s a defense win on an unusual issue. The State charged Thiry with 15 misdemeanor counts for mistreating 5 horses. A jury ultimately convicted her on just 1 count relating to 1 horse. She challenged a circuit court order requiring her to reimburse the county for the investigation expenses relating to all 5 of the horses it seized. The appeal hinged on the proper interpretation of Wis. Stat. §173.24. [continue reading…]
State v. E.P., 2015AP1298-1300, 10/1/15, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A jury found grounds to terminate E.P.’s parental rights because his kids were in continuing need of protective services. The court of appeals rejected E.P.’s arguments that § 48.415(2)’s “6 months or longer” period (i.e. the time a child has been placed outside the home per a CHIPS order) begins to run only after he exhausted his appellate rights. The court also declined to order a new trial in the interests of justice. [continue reading…]
State v. A.W., 2015AP1480-1481, 10/1/15, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Focusing on §48.426(3)(c), one of the “best interests of the children” criteria, the court of appeals here affirmed the circuit court’s finding that the termination of AW’s parental rights would not significantly harm her children. Evidence that the S.B., the likely adoptive parent, would allow A.W. to continue to see her children supported the circuit court’s decision on this point. [continue reading…]
