If you missed the recent post on plea agreements as “constitutional contracts,” you might want to take a look at it now. In the comment section you’ll find the Bills bantering about how such an argument would play out in the trial courts AND ALSO a comment by Colin Miller, the professor who wrote the law review article at issue, reacting to the Bills’ banter. Click here for the post and comments.
If California and Texas can do it, can Wisconsin do it too? Click here to see Professor Edward Imwinkelried’s new article on revising postconviction relief statutes to cover convictions resting on subsequently invalidated expert testimony. Who can name a type of expert testimony that has been recently invalidated?
Interesting case out of Missouri. At trial, the State played a video of the defendant after he was arrested for OWI and pointed to his speech pattern as evidence of intoxication. In response, the defendant sought to offer a voice exemplar to show that this was his normal speech pattern. However, he also did not want to testify. The court of appeals held that the trial court could not exclude the exemplar on the grounds that the defendant refused to take the stand and submit to cross-examination, citing a long list of cases which you will find here. Note, however, that the court of appeals excluded the voice exemplar on other grounds.
For latest on this subject, see today’s issue of Inside Track, which features comments by Wisconsin’s expert on evidence-based sentencing, Professor Cecelia Klingele.
SCOWstats has released the results of its 2016-2017 fantasy league tournament and named this term’s most valuable player. See how Wisconsin’s law firms performed and learn who won MVP here!
On Point is pleased to present a guest post by Attorney Adam Welch of Tracy Wood and Associates. The law firm recently persuaded Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Hanrahan to declare Wis. Stat. § 346.67 facially unconstitutional and to grant their motion to dismiss a felony Hit and Run—Injury complaint. Judge Hanrahan issued an oral ruling. The transcript has not yet been prepared, so we can’t link to the decision. Adam, however, agreed to lay out the issues for On Point. Here’s Adam: [continue reading…]
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…]
