Then listen to yesterday’s WPR interview with ACLU staff attorney Tim Muth about the continued horrible conditions there. They have severe staffing shortages–a 40% shortage of guards, 50% shortage of teachers, and 67% shortage of social workers. Youth are spending 20 or 21 hours per day in their cells. Wasn’t Lincoln Hills supposed to be closed by now? Yes, but it isn’t. In fact, more youth are being sent there.
State C. Catti J. Meisenhelder, 2022 WI App 37; case activity (including briefs)
Meisenhelder was busted for shoplifting mouthwash and eyeliner at a Walmart. When police searched her purse they spotted a keychain that had a small, purple vial attached to it. They looked inside, found what looked like meth, and arrested her. She moved to suppress arguing that the search was unlawful under State v. Sutton, 2012 WI App 7, 338 Wis. 2d 338, 8080 N.W.2d 411 (2011). The circuit court denied the motion. In a decision recommended for publication, the court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
Last week SCOTUS issued Kemp v. United States construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). That rule allows a party to seek relief based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” within one year of the date on which a judgment becomes final. Wisconsin’s analog is §806.07. The issue in Kemp was whether the term “mistake” means mistakes by parties or whether it includes mistakes by judges. In a 7-1 decision SCOTUS held that it includes legal mistakes by judges. Wisconsin courts often look to federal case law on Rule 60(b) when construing §806.07. If you are working on this issue, check out SCOTUSblog’s post on Kemp.
Derrick A. Sanders v. State of Wisconsin Claims Board, 2021AP373, District 4, 6/9/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This lengthy, unpublished decision doesn’t bear directly on issues arising in day-to-day criminal litigation, but we note it here because its topic—compensation from the state to wrongly convicted innocent persons—may be of interest. [continue reading…]
Shinn v. Ramirez, USSC No. 20-1009, 5/23/22, reversing Ramirez v. Ryan, 937 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 2019); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
You can read at Scotusblog quite a bit of commentary on this most recent entry in the present Court’s war on habeas. At oral argument, the lawyer for the state told the court that “innocence isn’t enough” to merit relief for one of the death-row inmates in this case to gain relief. And the Court now agrees. The reason: the likely innocent inmate’s state-provided postconviction counsel didn’t make a good enough record that his trial counsel was ineffective. [continue reading…]
State v. Valiant M. Green, 2022 WI 41, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition, 2019AP2150-CR, case activity (including briefs)
Does an affidavit supporting a warrant for a blood draw state probable cause where it alleges that the defendant “drove or operated a motor vehicle at driveway of [residential address]” and that the defendant “admitted to drinking alcohol at the house?” Writing for the majority, Justice Hagedorn answers “yes.” Justice A. W. Bradley, the sole dissenter, says “no.” [continue reading…]
State v. Kimberly L. Howell, 2021AP1865-CR, 6/8/22, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Howell served as guardian for five children, four of whom were her grandkids. The fifth, 11 year old S.G., has special needs. Howell pled no contest to child neglect and domestic abuse due to her mistreatment of S.G. The circuit court gave her two years of probation during which she could not serve as a guardian for any child, including her grandson, J.R., who has autism. On appeal, Howell argued that this condition of probation was (1) overly broad and unconstitutional and (2) unreasonable and inappropriate. [continue reading…]
County v. Buffalo v. Kevin J. Rich, 2020AP1526, 6/7/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejected all three of Rich’s challenges to his OWI 1st conviction. It held that the deputy did have reasonable suspicion to stop Rich’s jeep and to expand the stop to require field sobriety tests. It also held that even though Rich gave six breath samples, he consented to and completed just one breath test. [continue reading…]
