Read the NYTimes new article: “Imagine Being on Trial. With Exonerating Evidence Trapped on Your Phone. Public defenders lack access to gadgets and software that could keep their clients out of jail.”
Appellate lawyers, this one’s for you! According to a new article in Stanford Law Review, there are 4 types of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and Strickland‘s two-part test applies to only one (that’s right one) of them. Read this article and help our courts put Strickland in its proper place.
Quite possibly, yes. Learn more in this new article by a couple of Harvard professors.
La Crosse County v. J.M.A., 2018AP1258, 11/21/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.M.A. appeals his recommitment under ch. 51. He argues the psychiatrist who was the sole witness at his trial provided only conclusory testimony on dangerousness; the court of appeals disagrees. [continue reading…]
On November 20, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:
State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60 (a riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle for purposes of the OWI statute)
State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61 (the 72-hour filing deadline for a petition to revoke NGI conditional release is mandatory)
State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2019 WI App 63 (state not required to have expert opinion on risk at ch. 980 discharge hearing).
Here is a story about a lawyer whose pants ignited during his closing argument at a criminal arson trial. He rushed from the courtroom to extinguish the flames and denied that he had staged a stunt. He faces possible discipline.
The 5th Amendment is an invincible shield against takings claims but not against self-incrimination and double jeopardy claims. And, of course, the justices political leanings influence their positions. Click SCOWstats for the justice-by-justice analysis.
