by admin
on October 2, 2015
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.
{ }
by admin
on October 2, 2015
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. 🙂
{ }
by admin
on October 2, 2015
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…]
{ }
by admin
on October 2, 2015
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…]
{ }
by admin
on October 2, 2015
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…]
{ }
by admin
on September 30, 2015
State v. John C. Martin, 2015AP597-CR, District 2, 9/30/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police searched a tavern bathroom for a person named in an arrest warrant; they found no one, but they did notice a strong odor of raw marijuana. Martin was the last person seen leaving the bathroom. Ergo, the police had reasonable suspicion to detain Martin and investigate whether he had drugs on him. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 30, 2015
On Point keeps a list of upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court arguments in indigent defense cases on the righthand sidebar. Because October starts tomorrow, we just updated the list and confirmed (as predicted by Justice Abrahamson here) that there is just one case scheduled for argument in November. It’s not posted because it’s a civil case. So far, there are no cases scheduled for argument in December. This is unusual, and we wanted readers to know that it is not a mistake.
{ }
by admin
on September 29, 2015
State v. Martin F. Kennedy, 2015AP475-CR, District 1, 9/29/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court erred in denying Kennedy’s plea withdrawal motion without a hearing, as the record of the plea shows he wasn’t advised about the domestic abuse modifier at the time of his plea and Kennedy alleged his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to advise him of the modifier. [continue reading…]
{ }
