State v. Gary R. Schumacher, 2019AP1261-CR, District 4, 5/7/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Schumacher was convicted of OWI with a prohibited alcohol content in connection with an accident at 8:45 p.m. His blood was drawn at 10:56 p.m., and tests showed a BAC of .171, well above his legal limit of 0.08. The sole issue on appeal was whether Schumacher’s trial counsel had adequately cross-examined Kristin Drewieck, a chemist with the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene about her estimates of Schumacher’s BAC at 8:45 p.m. [continue reading…]
{ }
United States v. Sineneng-Smith, USSC No. 19-67, 2020 WL 2200834, May 7, 2020, vacating and remanding 910 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 2019); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reformulated the issues Sineneng-Smith raised in district court and on an appeal of her conviction for violating a federal immigration statute, and invited three organizations to file amicus briefs and participate in further oral argument. (Slip op. at 5-7). The Supreme Court holds the Court of Appeals “departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to consitute an abuse of discretion.” (Id. at 3). [continue reading…]
{ }
Town of Waterford v. Christopher Pye, 2019AP737, 5/6/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects the municipality’s argument that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to the two-year statute of limitation for bringing a forfeiture action. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. David William Krumm, 2019AP243-CR, District 3, 5/5/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under § 343.303 and County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis. 2d 293, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999), there was probable cause to believe Krumm was operating while intoxicated, so police could request he submit to a preliminary breath test. [continue reading…]
{ }
Ladarius Marshall v. Scott Eckstein, No. 15-CV-008 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 22, 2020)
Marshall pleaded to homicide and other charges. Before he did so, though, he moved to suppress statements he’d made during more than 12 hours of interrogation at the police station (he was 16 years old at the time). The trial court and our court of appeals held that the interrogating officers “scrupulously honored” Marshall’s multiple assertions that he didn’t want to talk with them anymore. The federal district court finds this conclusion unreasonable because the officers deflected his refusals to talk and cajoled him into continuing. What’s more, the court says that even his later statements–given to officers who did follow Miranda‘s rules–must be suppressed because they were too closely connected to his original, unlawfully-taken statements. [continue reading…]
{ }
State v. Ronald Eugene Provost, 2020 WI App 21; case activity (including briefs)
It’s unclear why this opinion is recommended for publication. Best guess is that is provides a (rather thin) gloss on the “systemic breakdown” exception to the rule that delays attributable to defense counsel don’t weigh in favor of a speedy trial violation. The court cites and adopts a statement from a New Mexico court that defense counsel’s delays represent a “systemic breakdown” only when they are caused by “problems that are both institutional in origin and debilitating in scope.” (¶40). Sounds like a slightly longer way of saying “systemic breakdown,” no? [continue reading…]
{ }
Edwards v. Vannoy, USSC No. 19-5807, certiorari granted 5/4/20
Question presented:
Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), apply retroactively to cases on federal collateral review?
Like the holding in Ramos itself, the decision in this case will have direct relevance only to practitioners handling federal habeas review of convictions from Louisiana or Oregon, the two jurisdictions that permitted 10-2 guilty verdicts in criminal trials before Ramos invalidated non-unanimous juries.
{ }
Courtesy of Garrett Epps, writing at The Atlantic, “A Citizen’s Guide to SCOTUS Live”:
America’s typical amusements—March Madness, the NBA playoffs, Major League Baseball Opening Day, the U.S. Open, the Masters—have suddenly disappeared. Just in time, though, a new Big League debuts tomorrow [May 4], offering a welcome spectacle of bare-knuckle combat, vicious competition, taunts, and trash talk.
The Ultimate Fighting Championship will return on May 9. Until then, the United States Supreme Court is the only show in town.
Read the entire piece here.
Over at the Gray Lady, Adam Liptak explains how “revolutionary” it is for the Court to do live broadcasts of oral argument. Perhaps, as someone said, it is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is in spate. But if Covid-19 spurs more such salutary changes to the legal system, then we should take the good where we can find it.
{ }
