by admin
on November 20, 2023
Graham L. Stowe v. Gregory Van Rybroek, 18-CV-400-wmc (W.D. Wis. 11/6/23).
Having recently prevailed on a judicial bias claim in state court, Stowe makes a return appearance to the blog on his 2018 federal habeas petition. Unfortunately, the Western District of Wisconsin denied the petition, which had been pending for close 5 years. The petition sought relief from the Wisconsin courts’ denial of his 2016 petition for conditional release under Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4)(d). In a novel reading of a nearly three-decades old Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, State v. Randall, 192 Wis. 2d 800, 532 N.W.2d 94 (1995) (“Randall I”), the federal court concludes that “one can reasonably read Randall I to require a showing of both mental illness and dangerousness.” [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 17, 2023
Although we know that this blog is “wisconsinappeals.net” we also acknowledge that many of our readers might also practice in Wisconsin’s federal courts, or have a general interest in developments from the Seventh Circuit. To that end, the blog is trying out a new feature, one in which we use our editorial special sauce to bring you capsule summaries of those Seventh Circuit decisions we found interesting, and potentially relevant to your practice. We hope you enjoy!
- USA v. Darlene Fieste, No. 23-1739: For those state court litigators who are currently working on involuntary medication issues, the Seventh Circuit’s jurisprudence in this area is noteworthy for the thoroughness of analysis and careful application of the Sell factors. Here, the defendant fails to persuade the Court that the district court was wrong to conclude that application of those factors to this case warranted the pretrial administration of involuntary medication. However, the latter portion of the decision contains a defense win, as Fieste persuaded the Court that the district court erred when it permitted medication without placing sufficient constraints on the specific medications and their dosages. Just because the State is permitted to medicate, they don’t get a blank check. If you have one of these cases, the lengthy discussion of the case law on this requirement may have some nuggets that are useful for your state court litigation.
- USA v. John Pacilio and Edward Bases, Nos. 23-1528 & 23-1530: While readers of this blog who are primarily involved in indigent defense may have no frame of reference for the sophisticated white collar criminality discussed in this appeal, this case presents a bevy of interesting issues including a challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying conviction as well as an interesting evidentiary challenge, wherein experts were functionally allowed to testify that the defendant’s conduct was, in fact, unlawful.
- USA v. Jazz Price, No. 22-2061: This defense loss is worth pointing out because it originates from Wisconsin’s Western District and involves a novel sentencing challenge–whether the district court adequately considered this transgender litigant’s “unique vulnerability” in a prison environment. While Price does not succeed in her challenge, the Seventh Circuit’s opinion does contain helpful language which suggests that it least acknowledges the unique risks posed to transgender individuals in prison environments.
{ }
by admin
on November 16, 2023
State v. J.A.J., 2022AP2066, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a noteworthy juvenile appeal, COA rejects a novel argument highlighting the dysfunctional nature of our juvenile justice system as caused by the “closure” of Lincoln Hills.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 16, 2023
State v. B.M., 2023AP1137, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite an intervening decision from SCOW which generated skepticism as to whether parents can obtain plea withdrawal when a circuit court miscommunicates the burden of proof in a TPR plea colloquy, COA nevertheless reverses and remands in this case presenting yet another “A.G.” claim.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 15, 2023
Kenosha County DCFS v. M.T.W. 2023AP610, 11/15/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
“Mary” appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her daughter “Carrie.” the court of appeals rejects several claims that Mary’s counsel was ineffective and affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 8, 2023
State v. Michele M. Ford, 2022AP187 & 2022AP188, 10/31/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The takeaway from this procedurally convoluted case is that Ford succeeds in her appeal from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial in two misdemeanor cases. Specifically, the court reverses and remands for a “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing at which the circuit court will have to determine whether Ford was competent to proceed without relying on trial counsel’s statements to the evaluator, which the court holds violated the attorney-client privilege and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Op., ¶26). [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 8, 2023
Sawyer County v. P.D.F., 2022AP2007, 11/7/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although P.D.F. successfully persuades COA that the circuit court erroneously concluded he did not understand the advantages, disadvantages and alternatives to medication, the record nonetheless shows that he was incapable of applying an understanding.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 7, 2023
Walworth County v. E.W., 2023AP289, 11/1/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Defying the recent trend of hearsay victories in Chapter 51 appeals, COA rejects E.W.’s attempt to argue that the admission of hearsay evidence at his final hearing constituted “plain error.”
[continue reading…]
{ }
