by admin
on April 10, 2018
State v. T.G., Sr., 2017AP1715, District 1, 4/10/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.G. sought to withdraw his no contest plea to the grounds alleged in a TPR petition. He argued that his mental health issues prevented him from understanding the TPR proceedings and that his lawyer failed to fully explain that a no contest plea waived the right to a jury trial. The court of appeals holds that the record of the no contest plea demonstrates T.G. understood what he was doing and the consequences of his plea. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 10, 2018
Dane County DHS v. C.B., 2018AP38 & 39, 4/9/2018, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Yes, that headline is correct: The circuit court did not terminate C.B.’s parental rights, and the court of appeals rejects the County’s challenges to the circuit court’s decision (and admonishes the County’s lawyer for an improper argument).
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 9, 2018
This new law review article by Daniel Epps examine the subject in depth. Consider this excerpt from the abstract:
Judges and commentators sharply disagree about which (and even whether) constitutional errors can be harmless, how to conduct harmless-error when it analysis applies, and, most fundamentally, what harmless constitutional error even is-what source of law generates it and enables the Supreme Court to require its use by state courts. This Article offers a new theory of harmless constitutional error, one that promises to solve many of the doctrine’s longstanding mysteries.
{ }
by admin
on April 9, 2018
A new Hofstra Law Review article argues that there is no such things as a low-stakes misdemeanor. The sentences can be long and the collateral consequences can be worse. This article could help you help your judge engaged in informed misdemeanor sentencing. Your clients will thank you.
{ }
by admin
on April 9, 2018
Kerr’s latest post considers 2 recent federal district court decisions on this subject. One raises the question of whether, under the 5th Amendment, the government may compel a suspect to enter a passcode to unlock his device. The other considers whether the government may use a passcode obtained from a suspect in violation of Miranda to unlock his phone. Read the full post here.
{ }
by admin
on April 5, 2018
State v. Collin M. Gallagher, 2017AP1403, 4/5/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police took Gallagher’s blood by a warrant that the parties agree was supported by probable cause of operating while intoxicated. He argues, though, that the warrant did not, by its terms, authorize the subsequent testing of his blood–or, that if it did authorize testing, its failure to specify what sorts of testing were permitted rendered it an unconstitutional “general warrant.” [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 4, 2018
State v. Marque D. Cummings, 2017AP1587-CR, District 1, 4/3/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is another one of those cases where the police seized and searched a person for being normal in a high crime area. “But OMG he was wearing a backpack–it might have contained drugs or burglary tools!!!” We are pleased to report that calmer minds prevailed both in the circuit court and the court of appeals. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on April 3, 2018
State v. Lindsey Dawayne Neal, 2017AP1397-CR, 4/3/18, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
According to the court of appeals, yes. The State’s allegations in its complaint and a dashcam video were sufficient to prove reasonable suspicion that Neal parked his car in a manner to obstruct traffic on a highway in violation of Milwaukee Traffic Code 101-24.1. Neal himself asked to call the arresting officers to testify, but the circuit court refused. Who needs witnesses? Hearings are much more efficient without them. [continue reading…]
{ }
