by admin
on December 13, 2017
Dassey v. Dittman, 2017 WL 6154050, (7th Cir. 12/8/17)
This is the decision Making a Murderer watchers have been waiting for. Critics and ivory tower dwellers will celebrate the result (a 4-3 win for the prosecution) but also the concise, dispassionate exposition of the law on involuntary confessions and its application to a hypothetical Brendan Dassey–someone mature, intelligent, unsusceptible to manipulation or coercion by “interviewers.” Documentary fans and lawyers having real world experience representing clients with diminished mental capacity will prefer Chief Judge Diane Wood’s biting dissent. She nails the flaws in the majority’s reasoning and applies the law to the human Dassey–a 16-year old with an IQ in the low 80s. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 13, 2017
State v. Travis J. Rose, 2018 WI App 5; case activity (including briefs)
A police officer investigating reports of Rose’s erratic driving concluded Rose was not intoxicated by alcohol, but continued to detain him and, after securing consent, searched Rose’s car, where he found narcotics. The court of appeals holds the officer’s continued detention of Rose, and thus the consent to search the car, were lawful because the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue his investigation. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 12, 2017
State v. S.N.N., 2016AP2102 & 2016AP2103, District 1, 12/12/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
S.N.N. admitted the continuing CHIPS ground that was alleged in the TPR petition regarding her two children. The court of appeals rejects her claim that her admission was not knowing and voluntary. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 10, 2017
State v. Bradley E. Ammann, 2017AP866-CR, 12/7/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A state trooper stopped Ammann for speeding as he and his wife were driving home from a wedding reception. The trooper asked Amman to exit the car and then smelled intoxicants on him. This led to field sobriety tests and then a preliminary breath test showing that Ammann had an .068 alcohol concentration. He almost escaped with a mere citation for speeding except the trooper had to go and check his driving record. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 5, 2017
State v. Lonnie S. Sorenson, 2016AP1540-CR, 12/5/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Sorenson appeals jury-trial convictions for operating with a PAC and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was also found guilty of operating with a detectable amount of THC in his blood, but this was dismissed by operation of statute. See Wis. Stat. § 346.63(2)(am). He raises ineffective assistance, pretrial discovery, and confrontation issues, but the court rejects them all.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 4, 2017
State v. Ginger Breitzman, 2017 WI 100, 12/1/17, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Breitzman was convicted at trial of several counts of child abuse (for physical assaults) and neglect of her son, J.K. She was also convicted of a charge of disorderly conduct for an incident inside their home in which she called him a “fuck face,” a “retard,” and a “piece of shit.” The lead issue is whether her trial lawyer was ineffective for not trying to get the DC dismissed because her words were protected by the First Amendment. The court refuses to decide.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on December 4, 2017
On November 29, 2017, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:
State v. A.L., 2017 WI App 72 (court may order reexamination of juvenile fount not likely to be competent to proceed)
State v. Damien Markeith Divone Scott, 2017 WI App 74 (checkpoint stop justified by “special needs” of law enforcement)
{ }
by admin
on November 30, 2017
State v. D.C., 2016AP2229-2230, District 1, 11/30/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
During the grounds phase of her TPR proceeding, D.C.’s lawyer asked the trial court to: (1) instruct the jury that she was prohibited from having visitation with her children for a period of time, and (2) give curative instructions that it was impossible for her to perform a condition for return of her kids and to assume parental responsibility due to her incarceration. The court planned to rule on these requests just before trial, but, oops, that did not happen. [continue reading…]
{ }
