State v. David Jerome Gant, 2015 WI App 83; case activity (including briefs)
Ten months after seizing Gant’s computer as part of their investigation of the death of Gant’s wife, police searched the computer pursuant to a warrant and found child pornography. Assuming it was unlawful for the police to keep Gant’s computer for that long, the child pornography found on the computer should not be suppressed under the independent source and attenuation doctrines. [continue reading…]
State v. Ennis Lee Brown, 2015AP522-CR, District 1, 10/9/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The 14½-month delay in trying Brown didn’t violate his right to a speedy trial, as “all of the delays are attributable to the defense, and most are attributable to Brown’s poor behavior and inability to work with his assigned counsel.” (¶56). At the same time, the trial court didn’t err in allowing Brown to proceed pro se at the start of trial, as Brown’s “poor behavior and inability to work with his assigned counsel” don’t show Brown was incompetent to represent himself. [continue reading…]
Judge who told public defender “I’ll beat your ass” is suspended without pay. Click here.
Are you careful about what you put in your emails? If not, read A Supreme Court Justice’s Indecent Inbox and then you will be!
Be patient. Supreme court justices become more liberal with age. 🙂 Click here.
Judge reprimanded for requiring indigents to perform public service in order to get appointed counsel. Click here.
We’ve told you SCOTUS continues to edit its opinions after releasing them. Now they’re going to be forthright about it. Click here for here for that and other changes for this this term.
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (composed by On Point from the PFR)
- Does the inevitable discovery doctrine require the State to show that information gained through police misconduct did not prompt or influence the purportedly lawful investigation?
- Does the inevitable discovery doctrine require the State to show that it was actively pursuing an alternative line of investigation prior to the illegal conduct?
- Does the Wisconsin Constitution bar use of the inevitable discovery doctrine to allow admission of evidence obtained through an intentional violation of constitutional rights?
Clark County v. S.A.G., 2015AP793, District 4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
There was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that S.A.G. suffers from a disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent, as required by § 55.08(1)(d). [continue reading…]
State v. L.M.-N., 2014AP2405 & 2014AP2406, District 1/4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly entered a default judgment in L.M.-N.’s termination of parental rights proceeding based on her failure to appear at her scheduled deposition and, when she did finally appear, by refusing to testify. [continue reading…]
State v. Mark Alan Tralmer, 2015AP715-CR, District 4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court’s implicit rejection of Tralmer’s suppression hearing testimony and acceptance of the police officer’s contrary testimony were not clearly erroneous and therefore must be upheld on appeal, State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, ¶12, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748. Accordingly, the circuit court properly concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Tralmer for violating § 346.05(1) by swerving into the wrong lane of traffic when there is no obstruction requiring the driver to do so, as allowed under § 346.05(1)(d). [continue reading…]
State ex rel. Rockie L. Douglas v. Brian Hayes, 2015 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)
Douglas’s probation was improperly revoked based on his refusal to answer his probation agent’s inquiry about Douglas’s suspected involvement in various criminal activities while on probation because he was not sufficiently informed, prior to his refusal, that he had both use and derivative use immunity related to any information he would have provided the agent. [continue reading…]
