by admin
on July 20, 2020
State v. Desmond Myers LaPean, 2019AP1448, 7/14/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
LaPean pleaded to a sexual assault of a child with an agreement that the state would cap its recommendation at 10 years of initial confinement and 10 of extended supervision. But at sentencing, the state first recommended 12 and 12. After defense counsel’s objection, the state instead requested 10 and 14. Counsel didn’t notice the second breach, but the prosecutor eventually did, telling the court the agreement was for 10 and 10. The court gave 12 and 10. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 19, 2020
Looking at doing a jury trial any time soon, in the time of Covid? You might be interested in this article about a judge mandating transparent masks for witnesses.
{ }
by admin
on July 16, 2020
State v. Samuel L. Nichols, Jr., 2019AP802-CR, District 4, 7/16/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nichols was charged with capturing images of nudity without consent and sexual assault. He argues the police didn’t have probable cause to seize his cell phone and therefore the images they found on it must be suppressed. He also asserts other-acts evidence was erroneously admitted at his trial. The court of appeals rejects both claims. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 16, 2020
Fond du Lac County v. S.N.W., 2020AP274-FT, District 2, 7/15/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 11/19/20; case activity
The testimony of the county’s expert provided sufficient evidence of dangerousness under § 51.20(1)(a)2.b. and (1)(am). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 16, 2020
Racine County HSD v. S.M.F., 2019AP2346 & 2019AP2347, District 2, 7/15/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.M.F.’s challenges the order terminating her parental rights, alleging trial counsel was ineffective and that the circuit court should have granted her mistrial motion. The court of appeals affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 14, 2020
SCOW addressed the elements of a criminal legal malpractice claim last month in Skindzelewski v. Smith, 2020 WI 57, __ Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d__. One element is that the criminal defendant/malpractice plaintiff must prove that he was actually innocent of the charge in his underlying criminal case. Last week, the court of appeals certified a follow up question to SCOW: What if the criminal defendant/malpractice plaintiff was charged with multiple crimes and can show actual innocence as to some, but not all, of the charges against him in the underlying criminal case? See Jama I. Jama v. Jason C. Gonzalez and WILMIC, Appeal No. 2019AP629 (July 9, 2020). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 13, 2020
State v. Timothy E. Dobbs, 2020 WI 64, 7/3/20, affirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals opinion, 2018AP319; case activity (including briefs)
There’s really only one important holding here: despite adoption of the Daubert standard, Wisconsin continues to permit expert testimony in the form of “dissertation or exposition.” That is, an expert can educate the jury about the principles or findings of his or her field without talking about the facts of the case, and an expert who does so is not subject to the requirement that he or she “appl[y] the principles and methods” of that field “reliably to the facts of the case.” Though the court also decides a separate Miranda issue, the discussion is fact-intensive and breaks no legal ground. What’s notable (and regrettable) about the Miranda decision is a meandering three-justice concurrence that repeats the court’s error in State v. Bartelt, 2018 WI 16, 379 Wis. 2d 588, 906 N.W.2d 684, by grafting a third step onto the familiar two-part Miranda-custody inquiry. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on July 13, 2020
State v. Ryan M. Muth, 2020 WI 65, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Muth drove while intoxicated and caused the death of T.K. About a month later T.K.’s adult children reached a settlement with Muth’s insurer under which the children received the maximum payout under Muth’s policy as settlement for all claims against Muth. (¶3). Or so Muth thought. A majority of the supreme court holds that, because Muth was later convicted of homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle, he can also be ordered to pay more money to the children as restitution under § 973.20.
[continue reading…]
{ }
