When a prisoner files more than one case or appeal in the federal courts in forma pauperis, does 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2) cap the monthly exaction of filing fees at 20% of the prisoner’s monthly income regardless of the number of cases or appeals for which he owes filing fees? [continue reading…]
State v. Andre M. Chamblis, 2015 WI 53, 6/12/15, reversing an unpublished per curiam decision of the court of appeals; opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court unanimously holds that when the parties in an OWI prosecution are disputing the number of prior offenses, the circuit court can require the dispute to be resolved before it accepts the defendant’s plea; it doesn’t have to wait till sentencing to determine the number of prior offenses. And even if the court errs in denying the state the chance to prove an additional prior OWI conviction at sentencing, it violates due process to allow the circuit court to resentence the defendant on the basis of the additional conviction if the additional conviction would increase the penalty that could be imposed.
We can’t let June 15, 2015, go by without noting that it is the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. Want to know more? You’re in luck! No anniversary of significance (faux or otherwise) passes these days without a comprehensive website devoted to the event. Short of time? The New York Times offers a more succinct discussion (with a bonus pop quiz!). Or check out historian Jill Lepore’s very interesting essay about Magna Carta’s “unusual legacy in the United States.” (Not that it didn’t have an unusual legacy in Britain, as evidenced by Horace Rumpole’s reliance on the Great Charter to defend his right to the comfort of an occassional cheroot.) Happy anniversary, Magna Carta!
UPDATE: Lest we forget, we have our own hometown mural depicting King John’s submission. There’s more on the mural here; and the court system itself has articles on the mural and Magna Carta.
The U.S. bail system has received a lot of press this week. Click here for the NYT’s “When Bail is out of reach, other costs mount” and here for the Marshall Project’s “No bail, less hope: The death of Kalief Browder.”
Those stories will make you cry. But John Oliver’s explanation of the American bail system will make you LOL! Click here. Rumor has it Milwaukee County judges are watching this video. Maybe you should too. 🙂
Why was Wisconsin’s crime lab manager fired last year? Click here for more.
In case you missed it, On Point posted links to Prof. Jeff fisher’s detailed lists of cutting-edge legal issues concerning the Confrontation Clause here and digital privacy here (complete with case cites). Fire up those trial court motions!
Lots of news reports on tension in SCOW this week. Click e.g. here.
Who is better at predicting SCOTUS decisions–humans or robots? Click here
Are you on Twitter? This Texas Supreme Justice is. Called the funniest judge on Twitter, he said “the bar is so low it’s practically subterranean.”
From The Onion: “Struggling Justice Alito sent down to lower court!” Click here.
For you techies, click here to read about one public interest law attorney’s mobile law practice.
L-R: Jeff Fisher, Hannah Schieber Jurss (SPD), Jeremy Perri (SPD Appellate Division Director), Tim Muth (Reinhart shareholder)
On June 9th, Professor Jeff Fisher from Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic led a day-long workshop for the State Public Defender’s Appellate Division at the law firm of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. The workshop focused on strategies for obtaining and opposing review by the United States Supreme Court. Fisher clerked for Justice Stevens and has argued 27 cases to SCOTUS, including Crawford v. Washington, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and California v. Riley–groundbreaking cases that affect our daily work. So Appellate Division lawyers were eager to hear his insights on how SCOTUS operates and how to persuade the justices to grant petitions for writ of certiorari. Click here to learn more about his strategies. And click here and here to see how his clinic used those strategies in recently-filed cert petitions.
The road to SCOTUS begins in the circuit courts. So, dear trial lawyers, this post offers a virtual gift bag for you too! Professor Fisher has been tracking cert-worthy issues relating to the Confrontation Clause and to the 4th Amendment and digital privacy. Click here and here for his meticulous outlines (with tons of case cites) on these subjects and then start preserving those issues in your trial court motions! Your appellate lawyers will love you for it. 🙂
State v. Lance Donelle Butler, Jr., 2014AP1769-CR, District 1, 6/9/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Using cell phone tower data provided by Butler’s cell phone service provider to make a map of where Butler had used his cell phone on the day of the crime didn’t require “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge” under § 907.02(1); thus, the police officers who created the map didn’t need to be qualified as experts under the statute and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
State v. Amelia A., 2015AP630 & 2015AP631, District 1, 6/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
While the order extending the placement of Amelia’s children outside of her home did not specifically recite the conditions she needed to meet for the return of her children, the extension order specifically incorporated by reference the original CHIPS order, which did recite the conditions Amelia had to meet for return of the children and warned that failing to meet the conditions could result in termination of her parental rights. Thus, Amelia received the notice required under §§ 48.356(2) and 48.415(2)(a)1. and Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 607 N.W.2d 607.
Whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant’s legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. [continue reading…]
