Juneau County DHS v. C.C., 2020AP438, 6/4/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Courts don’t usually award summary judgment in TPR cases, especially not at the grounds phase where the question is whether the parent abandoned the child. The issue is generally too fact intensive. But here the circuit court found no genuine issue of fact regarding abandonment, and the court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, USSC No. 18-8369, 2020 WL 3038282, 6/8/20, affirming 754 Fed. Appx. 756 (10th Cir. 2018); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
The federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) bars a prisoner from being able to file a lawsuit without first paying filing fees if the prisoner has “three strikes”—that is, has had three or more prior suits dismissed because they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The issue here is whether the dismissal had to be with prejudice, or whether a dismissal without prejudice counts, too. It does, says a unanimous Court. [continue reading…]
State v. Mose B. Coffee, 2020 WI 53, 6/5/20, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2018AP1209; case activity (including briefs)
Under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 335 (2009), police can search a vehicle after arresting a recent occupant “when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” But how do courts decide when it’s “reasonable to believe” this: is it a typical totality-of-the-circumstances analysis examining all the facts around an arrest? Or, as many courts have concluded, do the elements of the crime suspected–the “offense of arrest”–determine categorically when a search is permitted and when it isn’t? A majority of justices in this case would adopt the former view, but, as we’ve often seen lately, their votes are split between the lead and dissenting opinions. This arguably means there’s no binding holding on the question of law; the only thing we know for sure is that the search in this case is upheld. [continue reading…]
State v. Christopher Drew Helwig, 2019AP448-CR, 6/4/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court admitted a blood/urine analysis form and lab report containing blood test results into evidence during Helwig’s OWI trial. On appeal Helwig argued that these documents were hearsay. And because the nurse who drew the blood did not testify at trial, the admission of these documents violated the Confrontation Clause. The court of appeals rejects both arguments. [continue reading…]
Covid-19 poses grave health risks, especially in close courtrooms. On the other hand, defendants have constitutional rights that are jeopardized by virtual or remote proceedings. In this new report NACDL takes the position that resuming criminal jury trials would be reckless, irresponsible and undermine their truth-seeking purposes. The report lists core principles for reopening criminal courts.
State v. David Gutierrez, 2020 WI 52, reversing in part a published court of appeals opinion, 6/3/20; case activity (including briefs)
In a 5-0 decision, SCOW affirms all parts of this published court of appeals decision but one. The court of appeals held that the circuit court erred in refusing to admit evidence that excluded Gutierrez as the source of male DNA in the underwear and around the mouth of a victim of child sexual assault. The assaults involved oral sex and attempted vaginal intercourse. SCOW reversed the court of appeals on that point. [continue reading…]
The Marshall Project just published an interesting new article. The U.S. is the only country that sends children to prison with no chance of getting out, and 80% of them are people of color. Due to the pandemic, some governors and parole boards are releasing prisoners convicted of low level crimes, but juvenile lifers have been overlooked. Recent SCOTUS decisions appeared to give them a second chance, but now they fear Covid-19 will kill them first. Read the article here.
State v. Barry J. Krull, 2019AP370-CR, 6/2/20, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity, (including briefs)
Deputies noticed Krull speeding and followed him to his co-worker’s residence. Krull drove 30-40 feet into the driveway when the deputies stopped him, noticed the usual signs of intoxication, conducted FSTs and then took him to the hospital for a blood draw. He moved to suppress arguing that the stop was unlawful and his consent to the blood draw wasn’t voluntary. He lost and appealed. [continue reading…]
