Timothy W. Miller v. Angela L. Carroll, 2019 WI App 10, petition for review granted, 8/14/19, affirmed, 2020 WI 56; case activity (including briefs)
After a contested hearing between Miller and Carroll about custody and physical placement of their child, and before issuing a decision, the circuit judge accepted a Facebook “friend” request from Carroll. Miller argued the circuit court demonstrated objective bias by doing so. The court of appeals agrees. [continue reading…]
State v. Esmeralda Rivera-Hernandez, 2018AP311-312-CR, 2/20/19, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
DAs have almost limitless discretion in deciding whether to initiate a prosecution. But their discretion to terminate a prosecution is subject to independent review by the circuit court, which must consider the public’s interest in: (1) the proper enforcement of its laws, and (2) deferring to the prosecutor’s legitimate discretion. See State v. Kenyon, 85 Wis. 2d 36, 45, 270 N.W.2d 170 (1978). In this case, the court of appeals holds the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it considered (1) but not (2). [continue reading…]
State v. Jeninga, 2019 WI App 14; case activity (including briefs)
Jeninga asserted that he would not have pled guilty to a weak child sexual assault charge if his trial counsel had filed an obvious motion to suppress child porn on his cell phone. Trial counsel, who missed the suppression issue, testified that the child porn caused to her to advise Jeninga to plead guilty, and he followed her advice. The court of appeals says trial counsel’s testimony was not enough to prove prejudice. Jeninga had to testify himself. [continue reading…]
D.R. v. B.D., 2018AP1731 & 2018AP1732, District 3, 2/20/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.D.’s challenges to the order terminating his parental rights come up short. [continue reading…]
You’ve seen the list of “most argumentative” lawyers 🙂 in SCOW. Now there’s a list of the “most argumentative” private and nonprofit firms in SCOW. Kudos to our comrades at the Remington Center, Legal Action of Wisconsin, and a number of private firms that take SPD cases for making the top 25 over the past 10 years!
State v. C.L.K., 2019 WI 14, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; 2/19/19; case activity (including briefs)
The State of Wisconsin petitioned the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to terminate C.L.K.’s parental rights, following which the matter went to trial in due course. After the State rested, the circuit court immediately decided that Mr. K. was an unfit parent. That is, the circuit court decided the matter before giving Mr. K. an opportunity to present his case. The State concedes this was error, but says it is susceptible to a “harmless-error” review. It is not. We hold that denying a defendant the opportunity to present his case-in-chief is a structural error, the consequence of which is an automatic new trial. Opinion, ¶1.
Last June in Carpenter v. United States, SCOTUS held that phone users have a 4th Amendment right to historical cell site location records. Prof. Orin Kerr has a new paper out about how to implement Carpenter. Click here. But why stop reading there? You can also read Prof. Alan Rozenshtein’s new paper on 4th Amendment reasonableness after Carpenter here.
Guess whose paper is one of the top 10 downloads on the Social Science Research Network’s Criminal Procedure e-journal? Professor Keith Findley’s Feigned Consensus: Usurping the Law in Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Cases. To be fair, Keith has many co-authors, but he is listed first!
