On Point

Hemphill v. New York, No. 20-637, cert. granted 4/19/21; reversed 1/20/22; Scotusblog page

Question presented:

Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause. [continue reading…]

State v. Davonta J. Dillard, 2020AP999, 4/13/21, District 1, (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Officers patrolling in Milwaukee noticed a vehicle idling and apparently unoccupied. One approached the vehicle and shined his flashlight through a window; he saw a person (Dillard) in the back seat who immediately ducked out of view (most of the windows were highly tinted, impeding the officer’s view). The officer opened the rear driver’s side door, and the person then opened and ran out the door on the other side. Other officers tasered and detained him. The officer who’d opened the door saw a handgun on the floor of the car, which ultimately led to Dillard’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. [continue reading…]

Rusk County v. A.A., Appeal No. 2019AP839 and 2020AP1580 (consolidated); certification granted 4/13/21, District 3; case activity here and here

SCOW recently held that recommitment proceedings are governed only by the procedures in §§51.20(10)-(13). Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2019 WI 66, 387 Wis. 2d 333, 929 N.W.2d 140. Thus, the procedural requirements in §§(1)-(9) do not apply. Id., ¶¶24, 27. This court of appeals certification asks SCOW to decide whether S.L.L. violates the plain language of Chapter 51. If not, then does Chapter 51 violate 14th Amendment due process and equal protection given that, under S.L.L.‘s construction, it denies people undergoing recommitment fundamental procedural rights guaranteed to people undergoing initial commitments. [continue reading…]

DRW’s Council on the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness is hosting a virtual event regarding mental health advocacy on April 20th from 5 to 6 p.m. It is open to everyone. DRW will share how it currently supports people with mental illness. But it really wants to hear ideas from people like you–public defenders, social workers, clients, judges–regarding additional ways it might help people with mental health needs recover and live successfully in the community.  Learn more here.

The featured speaker–Phyllis Greenberger–will focus on working with children and teens in the juvenile justice system. Pre-registration is required here.  If you cannot attend the event, you can still participate by completing this survey regarding mental health advocacy services.

Milwaukee County v. K.M., 2019AP1166, 4/13/21, District 1; (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity

The saga continues. Portage County v. E.R.R. 2019AP20133 presented the question of whether appeals from recommitment orders are ever moot due to their collateral effects. When SCOW split 3-3 in that case, it granted review in Sauk County v. S.A.M., 2019AP1033 and ordered the parties to brief whether it may order the court of appeals to decide commitment appeals before they expire. See our post here. Some might see the S.A.M. order as a red flag signaling “proceed with caution” on mootness. But, like a bull, the court of appeals charges ahead to dismiss another recommitment appeal as moot. [continue reading…]

Appellate lawyers, take note. Several recent press reports have observed that Justice Hagedorn has become the powerful swing vote on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Yesterday’s SCOWstats post provides the data. “In 2020-21, with Justice Kelly now supplanted by Justice Karofsky, the remaining three conservatives can no longer win without Justice Hagedorn, and, with him, they have prevailed in three of the seven 4-3 decisions so far this term—a ‘victory total’ no greater than that of the three liberal justices joined by Justice Hagedorn.” This morning’s decision in Tavern League of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Andrea Palm, shows just how critical his vote is in 4-3 decisions.

State v. Richard Michael Arrington, 2021 WI App 32; review granted 9/14/21, reversed, 2022 WI 53; case activity (including briefs)

Arrington was being held at the Brown County Jail for 1st-degree homicide when another inmate, Miller, began chatting with him about his case. Turns out Miller was a snitch for State. With the assistance of police, Miller recorded his conversations with Arrington. Then the State used Arrington’s statements to obtain a homicide conviction. The court of appeals held that the State’s use of the snitch violated Arrington’s 6th Amendment right to counsel, and his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the evidence. [continue reading…]