by admin
on June 13, 2014
How about some light reading and watching for your Friday afternoon?
Do you like the “Happy” song? You know: “Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof!” [Chorus: “because I’m happy . . .”] Well, apparently there’s a law firm just brimming with happy lawyers and they’ve videotaped themselves getting down to the Happy song. You can watch them boogie here. On Point’s pretty sure public defenders have a better sense of rhythm!
That sneaky SCOTUS. Did you know that SCOTUS surreptitiously changes its opinions long after it issues them? Adam Liptak of the New York Times wrote about it here. The edits aren’t trivial. Just as interesting, a techie lawyer figured out a way to detect and tweet those changes so you don’t have to do side-by-side comparisons of the original decision and the one you might be reading years later. Read about it here. Anybody know whether SCOW surreptitiously edits opinions?
SCOTUS v. Rappers. Who has a bigger vocabulary? Find out here. Then ask yourself who makes more sense?!
Is forensic science really “science”? Okay, we have to have one serious link. Find out how under-trained lab workers are handling your client’s DNA here. It won’t leave you singing the “Happy” song that’s for sure.
{ }
by admin
on June 13, 2014
On review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues (composed by On Point)
When, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.015, a sentencing court orders the expunction of a defendant’s record upon successful completion of his sentence, does expunction occur automatically upon the circuit court clerk’s receipt of the defendant’s certificate of discharge or must the defendant file a petition for expunction?
If the defendant must petition the circuit court for expunction, then: (a) is there a deadline by which he must file it, and (b) who is required to forward the certificate of discharge to the circuit court—the defendant or the Department of Corrections (or other detaining authority)?
If a defendant successfully completes his sentence or probation, thereby earning expunction, may the circuit court revoke the grant of expunction based upon the defendant’s post-discharge conduct?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 12, 2014
On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Was there sufficient evidence to establish Michael H. was “dangerous” under § 51.20(1)(a)2.a. or c., based either on his “threats” of suicide or a pattern of acts or omissions showing such impaired judgment that there is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 12, 2014
On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the inclusion in the PSI of statements Alexander made to his probation agent, and the trial court’s consideration of the statements at sentencing, violate Alexander’s right against self-incrimination?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 11, 2014
State v. Michael R. Luedtke, 2014 WI App 79, petition for review granted 10/15/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 42 (posts here and here); case activity
Section 346.63(1)(am), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in the blood, does not violate due process by failing to require proof that the defendant knowingly ingested the controlled substance. In addition, Luedtke’s due process rights were not violated when the state crime lab destroyed his blood sample before he could have it independently tested.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 11, 2014
State v. Jacqueline Robinson, 2014 WI 35, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
From the majority opinion, this looks like an open and shut case. When sentencing Robinson, the trial judge said he misunderstood the sentence she had received in another matter. One day later, he recalled the case and increased the sentence. No double jeopardy violation here, says the majority, Robinson could not yet have had a legitimate expectation of finality in her sentence. The 28-page concurrence and 20-page dissent suggest this case isn’t so simple. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 11, 2014
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s deadline for deciding cases is June 30th, but according to a May 21st court memo they had only discussed 23% of the cases they plan to decide this term. The Chief says what the justices need are more opportunities to discuss their cases. What Justices Crooks, Prosser, Roggensack, Gabelman and Ziegler voted for was a time limit on discussions. One thing’s certain. If the justices intend to get all of their work done this term, they’re likely looking a lot of “all nighters” in the next 18 days. How does this year’s backlog compare to the backlogs last year and the year before and the year before? Click here to find out. It’s not pretty.
{ }
by admin
on June 11, 2014
State v. Cordarol M. Kirby, 2014 WI App 74; case activity
The court of appeals holds that “while exigent circumstances may justify entry, the fact that entry has already been made does not necessarily invalidate reliance on the exigent circumstances doctrine.” (¶22). Thus, because in this case there were exigent circumstances justifying police entry into an apartment to locate a backpack the police believed contained firearms, it “does not matter” that an officer had earlier stepped over the threshold of the apartment door to converse with people inside.
[continue reading…]
{ }
