It happens. Even worse, some trial courts just say “for the reasons set forth in the State’s response, motion denied.” Turns out Judge Posner hates this practice too. Click here for more on his views.
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- COA holds, in unpublished but citable decision, that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at a TPR dispositional hearing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.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has quoted with approval language from the Seventh Circuit disapproving of the practice Judge Posner criticizes:
“From time to time district judges extract portions of briefs and use them as the basis of opinions. We have disapproved this practice because it disguises the judge’s reasons and portrays the court as an advocate’s tool, even when the judge adds some words of his own. . . . Unvarnished incorporation of a brief is a practice we hope to see no more.”
State v. McDermott, 2012 WI App 14, footnote 2, 339 Wis.2d 316, 810 N.W.2d 237, quoting from DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 626 (7th Cir. 1990). The court in McDermott, after quoting this from DiLeo, states: “We agree.”