On March 30, 2022, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions: State v. Shane Allan Stroik, 2022 WI App 11 (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate witness’s prior false allegation). State v. Jere J. Meddaugh, 2022 WI App 12 (police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop bicyclist riding… Read more
Published 2022
State v. Eric D. Bourgeois, 2022 WI App 18; case activity (including briefs) Police went looking for Bourgeois at a hotel because he might have been in possession of stolen handgun, he had PTSD, and he had a drug problem. At 2:00 a.m., despite a “do not disturb” sign, 3 officers tried to enter his… Read more
Victor Ortiz, Jr. v. Kevin A. Carr, 2022 WI App 16; case activity (including briefs) Attorneys Jason Luczak and Jorge Fragoso of Gimbel, Reilly, Geurin & Brown generously took this case pro bono. And now Jorge offers this guest post on their defense win: Prison inmate (and hero to institutionalized persons) Victor Ortiz filed a… Read more
State v. Shane Allan Stroik, 2022 WI App 11; case activity (including briefs) A jury convicted Stroik of the sexual assault of a then-five-year old girl, “Amy,” the daughter of his girlfriend. Postconviction, Stroik brought a slew of claims for a new trial; the circuit court rejected them all. The court of appeals now holds… Read more
State v. Jere J. Meddaugh, 2022 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs) Wearing black clothing and riding a bicycle across publicly accessible school grounds in the middle of the night while a Safer at Home order is in effect does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. So says the court… Read more
On January 27, 2022, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decision: State v. Nakyta V.T. Chentis, 2022 WI App 4 (knowing possession of heroin could be imputed from needle tracks and paraphernalia possession)… Read more
State v. Nakyta V.T. Chentis, 2022 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs) To convict someone of possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove both that he was in possession of the substance and that he knew or believed he was in possession of it. State v. Christel, 61 Wis. 2d 143, 159… Read more