by admin
on March 27, 2018
State v. Daniel Wilson, 2017AP813-CR, 3/27/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This appeal raises, among others things, a novel issue specific to child sexual assault cases. Is the State actually required to prove the 2nd element of repeated child sexual assault–that at least 3 assaults took place “within a specified period of time” as §948.025(1)(b) plainly states? Or is it relieved of that burden by virtue of various opinions holding that the State does not have to prove the “specifics” of a child sexual assault? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 27, 2018
State v. J.C., 2017AP1783, District 1, 3/27/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
J.C. pleaded no contest to the continuing CHIPS grounds alleged in the petition for termination of her parental rights. She later argued her plea wasn’t supported by sufficient evidence because, at the fact-finding hearing required under § 48.422(3) for no-contest pleas, there was no evidence the child welfare department made reasonable efforts to provide her with court-ordered services. Applying Waukesha County v. Steven H., 2000 WI 28, 233 Wis. 2d 344, 207 N.W.2d 207, the court of appeals holds that even if the record of the fact-finding hearing was deficient, there was other evidence in the record to make up for it. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 25, 2018
Defense attorneys hear an awful lot about the “importance of finality” in criminal cases–especially at the §974.06 stage of proceedings. What about the victims? What about the waste of additional judicial resources? There must be a stopping point! Do those arguments really make sense if the wrong person was convicted? The latest edition of The Marshall Project highlights data showing that wrongful convictions result in tens to hundreds of thousands of additional felonies and violent crimes per year. The new victims and their families suffer, and criminal justice system spends more resources resolving the new crimes. Finality is good, but only if the conviction is correct.
{ }
by admin
on March 25, 2018
The latest edition of the Volokh Conspiracy analyzes a recent 12-4 en banc decision by the 6th Circuit decision in which the majority answers the question above “no” based on current precedent. However, a “concurrence dubitante” argues that this conflicts with The Founders’ intent when they drafted the 6th Amendment. Another concurring opinion calls on SCOTUS to change its precedent. A dissent argues that based on the facts of this case, the right to counsel attaches before indictment. This issue seems destined for SCOTUS. Why not preserve it in your client’s case?
p.s. Raise your hand if you know what “concurring dubitante” means.
{ }
by admin
on March 24, 2018
State v. Dakota R. Black, 2017AP837, 3/22/18, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Black of the homicide of B.A.T., a five-year-old child in his care; the child was bruised and died of subdural hemorrhages. Black defended on the theory that the child’s injuries came in a fall, either on the stairs or on the playground. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 22, 2018
State v. Chad David Knauer, 2017AP2243-CR, 3/22/18, District 4 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Hats off to defense counsel, the circuit court, and court of appeals for the decision in this case. The State charged Knauer with misdemeanor theft of property. Police had interviewed him for just 1 hour at about 11 p.m. at the county jail. He admitted to stealing a trailer and storing it at his aunt’s and uncle’s house. But then police told Knauer that if any other stolen property was found at the same location they would arrest his aunt and uncle. The circuit court held that threatening to arrest Knauer’s relatives when police lacked probable cause that they had committed a crime was an improper interrogation tactic that rendered his confession involuntary. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 22, 2018
State v. Robert L. Bentz, 2017AP1436-CR, 3/21/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged Bentz with OWI 3rd and PAC 3rd. Bentz moved to suppress evidence for lack of reasonable suspicion to detain and lack of probable cause to arrest. The circuit court denied his motion. The appeal concerned the point at which the law enforcement officer seized Bentz and the evidence supporting reasonable suspicion and probable cause. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on March 20, 2018
State v. D.C., 2017AP1635, 3/20/18, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court terminated D.C.’s parental rights to his child, A.D.C. On appeal, D.C. argued that the trial court (1) lost competency to proceed when it failed to conduct an initial appearance in the case, and (2) erred in denying his request for discovery of emails between the ADA and the Child Protective Services case manager. [continue reading…]
{ }
