by admin
on April 23, 2019
Brown County DHHS v. L.F.H., Sr., 2019AP145, District 3, 4/23/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The County filed a petition to terminate L.F.H.’s parental rights based on a continuing denial of his periods of physical placement or visitation with his son, Leon (a pseudonym). The circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment at the grounds phase, but that was error because the County failed to prove the CHIPS dispositional order satisfied the requirements of § 48.415(4). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 23, 2019
J.P. v. A.P., 2018AP1775 through 2018AP1778, District 4, 4/18/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this unusual case, the court of appeals agrees with a parent in a TPR proceeding that the circuit court may not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because of an order issued in another state governs custody of the children. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 21, 2019
ASPD Andy Hinkel will argue Mitchell v. Wisconsin to the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday. The issue is whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Click here to read SCOTUSblog’s preview of the case. It points out that 29 states have laws similar to Wisconsin’s, so the court’s decision in this case will indeed have nationwide impact. If you want to listen to an audio recording of the argument or read a transcript of it, both will be available later this week here. Go, Andy! The SPD (and many amicus parties) are rooting for you and your client!!
{ }
by admin
on April 21, 2019
State v. Nelson Garcia, Jr., 2019 WI 40, 4/19/19; case activity (including briefs)
ASPD Pam Moorshead briefed this appeal and argued it to SCOW less than two weeks ago. The lead issue was whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon the finding of probable cause and setting of bail by a court commissioner. Justice Abrahamson withdrew from participation leaving only 6 justices to decide the case. Unfortunately, they split 3-3. This means that at least 1 of the conservative justices sided with the defendant. With the full court, he likely would have prevailed. Due to the split, the court of appeals’ decision stands. Clearly SCOW is interested in this issue (and possibly the other 2 listed in the petition) so please preserve it for your appellate colleagues! For a refresher, read On Point’s analysis here.
{ }
by admin
on April 21, 2019
If you’re seeking review in SCOTUS, be advised that the court recently changed its rules. Read SCOTUSblog’s summary here, which links to the amendments.
{ }
by admin
on April 21, 2019
According to a new empirical study, the prosecution of misdemeanors varies widely from jurisdiction. And they disproportionately impact the poor and people of color. Read all about it here.
{ }
by admin
on April 16, 2019
You know Sackler–the former chairman of Purdue-Pharma, maker of Oxycontin. You also know John Oliver, which means you probably want to want to see this dramatic reading of Sackler’s deposition!
{ }
by admin
on April 16, 2019
You don’t have to say that 3 times fast . . . or slow. We all know it’s true. Here is a study that confirms the point. While the article focuses on death penalty cases, its conclusions apply broadly. Want to challenge Strickland? This article is a place to start.
{ }
