That’s the title of this new publication by the Legislative Reference Bureau. The publication discusses the impact on Wisconsin of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, USSC No. 18-9256 (U.S. July 9, 2020). [continue reading…]
From the DHS press release:
Beginning October 24, 2020, Medicaid members that are incarcerated will have their health care benefits suspended and then re-evaluated before they are released from jail or prison. Previously, Medicaid members who became incarcerated had their coverage terminated, which then often delayed their access to medical and behavioral health care following their release. The Department of Health Services (DHS) and the Department of Corrections (DOC) have been working with income maintentance agencies and community partners to make this policy change.
Orin Kerr writes about the Supreme Court’s increasing use of subjective rather than objective tests in Fourth Amendment cases, here.
And commentary and discussion about court proceedings during and after Covid-19 continue to appear. For instance:
The Pandemic Juror, by Melanie Wilson at University of Tennessee
Unmuted: Solutions to Safeguard Constitutional Rights in Virtual Courtrooms and How Technology Can Expand Access to Quality Counsel and Transparency in the Criminal Justice System, by Matt Bender at University of Arkansa
Virtual Trials: Necessity, Invention, and the Evolution of the Courtroom, by Susan Bandes of DePaul University and & Neal Feigenson of Quinnipiac University
Finally, Evan Lee at Hastings has posted at Scotusblog about the criminal law decisions of Amy Coney Barrett since she’s been on the 7th Circuit.
Village of Lomira v. Phillip N. Benninghoff, 2020AP31, District 4, 10/15/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Benninghoff tries to raise a bevy of challenges to the implied consent law and to the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a blood draw. His challenges are forfeited because he failed to file a timely request for a refusal hearing and, in any event, the arguments aren’t suitably developed or are foreclosed by State v. Levanduski, 2020 WI App 53. [continue reading…]
Racine County DHS v. W.L.J., 2020AP197-198, October 14, 2020, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Good news for defense lawyers in TPR cases. The court of appeals means business. This is the third time in less than a year that it has reversed a termination of parental rights order due to a circuit court error on the question of whether a parent “abandoned” his or her child. [continue reading…]
According to this fact sheet on disparities in youth justice, Wisconsin has made significant efforts to reduce youth arrest and incarceration rates. Sounds good until you drill down to see that in Wisconsin the disparities between Black and white youths in the justice system is greater than in every other state of the country except New Jersey. The report attributes our dubious distinction to: (1) racial bias in the court system, (2) police policies that penalize Black youths for crimes that are just as likely to occur among white youths, and (3) automatic adult court transfers for crimes that disproportionately affect Black youths.
State v. Michael J. Pierquet, 2009AP2099-Cr, 10/14/20, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Pierquet of operating a motor vehicle with a Prohibited Alcohol Content. He argued that the circuit court erred in admitting the results of his blood test and in giving them prima facie effect because the State failed to prove that the analyst who performed the test possessed a valid permit for alcohol testing. The court of appeals disagreed because an employee of the State Lab of Hygiene testified that all of the analysts at the Lab hold a valid alcohol analysis issued by the state. [continue reading…]
State v. C.A.A., 2020AP1194, District 1, 10/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the trial on the petition to terminate C.A.A.’s parental rights, the case manager handling the CHIPS case pertaining to C.A.A.’s child testified that, in her opinion, C.A.A. would not likely satisfy the conditions of return under the CHIPS order within the 9-month period prescribed by § 48.415(2)(a)3. (2015-16) (a requirement eliminated by 2017 Wis. Act 256). (¶6 & ¶9 n.3). The court of appeals holds this was admissible lay opinion testimony. [continue reading…]
