Some states say “no.” The Marshall Project just ran this article on the practice. For the Connecticut case mentioned in the article, click here.
Jeremy Perri guests posts on State v. Adam M. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, 7/7/17, reversing a published court of appeals opinion, 2016 WI App 69, 371 Wis. 2d 635, 886 N.W.2d 94; case activity (including briefs)
SCOW suppresses blood test, holding that the statutory Informing the Accused misrepresented the consequences of a refusal, the consent was coerced, and the exclusionary rule is necessary to deter future violations. [continue reading…]
State v. Jarred S. Martens, 2016AP2384, District 4, 7/13/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Martens argues police didn’t have probable cause to arrest him for OWI because he didn’t do field sobriety tests and the absence of those tests means the state has to point to other, especially significant evidence to support probable cause. The court of appeals says the law doesn’t support this proposition, and even if it did there was enough evidence to arrest Martens. [continue reading…]
Attorneys litigating the breach of a plea agreement might want to take a look at this new paper, Plea Agreements as Constitutional Contracts, by Professor Colin Miller of the University of South Carolina Law School. It highlights some interesting issues to raise on behalf of our clients–issues that could well make their way to SCOTUS. It seems Bill Tyroler was ahead of Professor Miller though. Years ago he did two posts regarding Wisconsin cases, in which he argued that plea agreements are “constitutional contracts” and should be construed as such. See Bill’s posts here and here.
Click here to read the Iowa County Circuit Court’s July 7th decision declaring that §165.95(1)(a) and (3)(c), which bars persons charged with violent offenses from participating in drug treatment court, violates substantive due process as applied and procedural due process on its face. The court says its decision has the effect of a permanent statewide injunction against enforcement of the statute. The State agrees.
State v. Larry Davis, 2017 WI App 55; case activity (including briefs)
Applying § 304.072(4) and State v. Presley, 2006 WI App 82, 292 Wis. 2d 734, 715 N.W.2d 713, the court of appeals holds that a person who is revoked from extended supervision resumes serving his sentence when he is received in the prison system, not when revocation occurs; he is therefore entitled to sentence credit up to the date he returns to prison. [continue reading…]
Some records are not worth breaking. For SCOW, issuing the largest number of fractured, nonprecedential opinions in its history (at least since records have been kept) is surely one of them. SCOWstats just released its preliminary data on the 2016-2017 term. The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a meager 51 opinions–42 if you subtract the 1 decision that split 3-3 and the 8 decisions that failed to provide a precedential, majority opinion. One could argue that 18% of SCOW’s docket created instability in the law–ironic given that its purpose is, in part, to develop, clarify and harmonize the law. See §809.62(1r).
State v. M.W., 2016AP2045 & 2046, 7/11/17, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.W. pled no contest to a continuing CHIPS ground in the initial phase of the termination of her parental rights. She argues on appeal that the court erred in hearing factual basis testimony after her plea colloquy and in finding unfitness when she did not agree with some of the factual basis presented. [continue reading…]
