We’ve covered the pending cert petition in Loomis v. Wisconsin (e.g., here, here, here, and here), so we thought we’d close out our coverage by letting our readers know the Supreme Court denied the petition on its way out the door for summer recess. We’ll have to wait for some other case to address whether there are any due process limitations on using proprietary, undiscoverable algorithms to influence judge’s sentencing decisions.
On Point
by the Wisconsin State Public Defender
Important Posts!
- COA reverses order excluding other acts evidence, holds that greater latitude rule weakens holding of Alsteen
- In HUGE defense win, COA emphasizes that obtaining an involuntary med order is no walk in the park for the State
- SCOTUS tempers pro-gun 2nd Amendment precedent; holds States may disarm a citizen who poses “a clear threat of physical violence to another”
- COA holds, in unpublished but citable decision, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at a TPR dispositional hearing
- D3 affirms denial of plea withdrawal claim under Cross’ “higher, but not substantially higher” rule
Ahead in SCOW
October 7
Petitions Conference
November 11
Oral argument in Kaul v. Urmanski
November 12
Petitions conference
December 10
Petitions conference
Contact Us
On Point is sponsored by the Wisconsin State Public Defender. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
Disclaimer
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.
This site rocks the Classic Responsive Skin for Thesis.
Or, in the interim, demand that each and every PSI submitted by DOC for sentencing, be required to attach and include those “21 criminal history questions and their respective answers” the inclusion of which all 3 courts now, have supposedly each relied upon, in reaching their decisions. Or, in the alternative, request that sentencing be postponed, until this crucial arrest, conviction, supervision and gang affiliation criminal history information is provided, for thorough review of it’s accuracy in open court, citing the precedent now set forth in these decisions now available under State v. Loomis. These questions and their respective answers of course, are directly related to the level of risk assigned a defendant, and tie directly and decisively by explicit Division of Community Corrections Electronic Case Reference Manual instruction, into the sentence being recommended by DOC, despite of course, both the original and now also, the revised cautionary advisement, from Northpointe to the contrary.