Henderson v. United States, USSC No. 11-9307, reversing 646 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2011) When is plain really plain? That’s the plain and simple issue in this case. During trial, the district court decided a substantive legal question against the defendant. But while the case was on direct appeal, SCOTUS, in a separate case, settled… Read more
admin
Chaidez v. United States, USSC No. 11-820, affirming 655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) Issue: We know that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) requires counsel to advise a defendant about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. The question presented by Chaidez is whether or not that rule applies retroactively so… Read more
On review of published decision; case activity Confrontation — bases of expert opinion as “testimonial” hearsay Issue (Composed by On Point) When a State Crime Lab technician concludes there is a DNA match between defendant and assailant based in part on a report of a DNA profile prepared by an outside lab, is the outside lab… Read more
On review of certification request; case activity Invocation of the right to counsel Issues (Composed by On Point) 1. Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide more protection than Maryland v. Shatzer, ___U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (holding that, even if a defendant has invoked his or her right to counsel, law enforcement may give… Read more
Racine County v. Latanya D.K., 2013 WI App 28; case activity TPR – Waiver of jury trial need not be part of admission colloquy ¶2 Latanya’s major arguments raise an important question: Must the court engage in a personal colloquy with a parent regarding his or her waiver of the right to a jury trial before accepting the parent’s… Read more
Question presented: Whether or under what circumstances the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights. Lower court opinion (Salinas v. State, 369 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)) Docket Scotusblog page This case could have a significant impact on… Read more
Question presented: 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in conducting its constitutional analysis on the premise that respondent was not under a federal registration obligation until SORNA was enacted, when pre-SORNA federal law obligated him to register as a sex offender. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Congress lacks the Article I… Read more
Jamerson v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 2013 WI 7 Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2012 WI App 32, 340 Wis. 2d 215, 813 N.W.2d 221 This case is not directly applicable to SPD practice, but it is a useful reminder of the multitudinous collateral consequences that may attend a criminal conviction. Here’s the gist… Read more
