State v. J.L.C., 2017AP197, 5/2/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
J.L.C. argued that the circuit court erroneously terminated his parental rights to his son, K.C., because J.L.C. moved to Arizona, not because J.L.C. failed to provide a safe environment. [continue reading…]
Tamara M. Loertscher v. Eloise Anderson, et al., No. 14-cv-870-jdp (W.D. Wis. April 28, 2017)
Under § 48.193, which was created by 1997 Wisconsin Act 292, a juvenile court may treat an unborn child of any gestational age as a child in need of protection or services if the “expectant mother’s habitual lack of self-control in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree, [poses] a substantial risk” of harm to the unborn child. A federal judge has ruled the statute is void for vagueness. [continue reading…]
State v. Jack M. Suriano, 2017 WI 42, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2015AP959-CR; case activity (including posts)
In Wisconsin, a defendant can lose his or her right to counsel in two ways: waiver and forfeiture. Waiver is voluntary and requires a colloquy with the defendant. Forfeiture does not.
Three different attorneys accepted State Public Defender (SPD) appointments to represent Jack Suriano. Each, in quick succession, withdrew from representation. After granting the third attorney’s motion to withdraw, the court found that Suriano had forfeited his right to counsel. [continue reading…]
State v. Loomis has made the NYTimes again. See today’s article by Adam Liptak: Sent to Prison by Software’s Secret Algorithms.
State v. Sambath Pal, 2017 WI 44, 4/28/17, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition, 2015AP1782-CR; case activity (including briefs)
Driver crashes into group of motorcyclists, kills one, mortally injures a second, flees the scene, and eventually pleads guilty to 2 counts of hit and run resulting in death contrary to §346.67(1). He’s sentenced to 2 consecutive terms of 10 years IC and 10 years ES. Questions Presented: Did driver commit 1 offense or 2? And is his sentence unduly harsh? [continue reading…]
State v. George D. Taylor, 2015AP1325-CR, 4/27/17, District 1/4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Taylor raises a host of challenges to his felony murder conviction. The court of appeals rejects all of them except one: an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which the court orders must be assessed at a Machner hearing. [continue reading…]
Maya Elaine Smith v. Jeff Anderson, 2017 WI 43, dismissing a petition for review of 366 Wis. 2d 808, 874 N.W.2d 347 (Ct. App. 2016)(unpublished); case activity (including briefs)
Recently, SCOW has marched ahead and decided issues that the parties did not properly preserve or brief–to the detriment of indigent defendants. Recall what happened a few weeks ago in State v. Denny and earlier in State v. Sulla and State v. Smith. But in this case, after briefing and argument by the parties and an amicus curiae, a 3-justice majority (Ziegler and RG Bradley didn’t participate) showed remarkable restraint. It issued a per curiam opinion dismissing a petition for review as improvidently granted because nobody preserved an issue the court of appeals declined to decide. The upshot? It appears that SCOW has rescued West Bend Mutual Insurance Company from an appellate blunder and possible defeat. The blunder presents a teachable moment for appellate lawyers trying to preserve issues for supreme court review. [continue reading…]
A Tennessee lawyer is under fire for arguing that women are especially good at lying during the trial of a wealthy businessman accused of rape. The jury acquitted the defendant. Interestingly, 9 of the 12 jurors were women. Read more here.
