Sauk County DHS v. A.C., 2015AP898 & 2015AP899, District 4, 10/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A.C.’s trial lawyer was not ineffective for failing to take steps to exclude evidence about the termination of A.C.’s rights to a child in a prior case and about her parenting conduct toward that child and another child. [continue reading…]
State v. Tabitha A. Scruggs, 2015 WI App 88, petition for review granted, 3/7/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 15; case activity (including briefs)
Addressing a question left open by State v. Radaj, 2015 WI App 50, 363 Wis. 2d 633, 866 N.W.2d 758, the court of appeals holds that the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws does not bar the mandatory imposition of a DNA surcharge for a single felony conviction based on conduct that was committed before the mandatory DNA surcharge requirement took effect. [continue reading…]
State v. Courtney E. Sobonya, 2015 WI App 86; case activity (including briefs)
Sobonya launched a creative challenge to the denial of her §973.015 request for expungement. The court had held that while she would benefit from expungement, society would be harmed by the reduced deterrent effect of her sentence. So Sobonya moved for sentence modification based on an expert report showing that the public safety is best served by removing the barriers that convicted offenders face when trying to reintegrate into society. [continue reading…]
X.J. v. G.G., 2015AP1549, District 3, 10/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Under § 48.42(1), an adoptive parent may join the biological parent in a petition to terminate the parental rights of the other biological parent, and because joining the petition makes the adoptive parent a party, the adoptive parent is not subject to sequestration as a witness. [continue reading…]
Speaking of Padilla (see below), yesterday the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held in Dimaya v. Lynch that “the definition of a ‘crime of violence’ – one of over thirty categories of convictions that constitute an ‘aggravated felony’ under federal immigration law – is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.” Click here to see the ImmigrationProf Blog post about the decision and what it could mean for those of you defending immigrants.
This just in: “The Pressure Is On–Criminal Defense Counsel Strategies after Padilla v. Kentucky,” by Bill Ong Hing at the University of San Francisco Law School. When representing an immigrant defendant, trial counsel’s duties are now much more demanding than they were before Padilla. What qualifies as “competent” counsel in these circumstances? Click here for a new research paper attempting to answer this question. If you don’t have access to SSRN.com, email [email protected], and we will help you get a copy.
Also, Wisconsin’s own Davorin Odrcic just published “Plea Bargaining for Noncitizens: What defense attorneys should know” on the State Bar’s Inside Track. Check out Odrcic’s 2-minute video advice “preventing immigration consequences for non citizens” here.
If you are working on a COMPAS issue, you may be interested in a new research paper, “Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing,” from the University of Virginia School of Law. Here is the abstract: [continue reading…]
The Journal Sentinel is reporting that Justice Rebecca Bradley may participate in cases that were argued, but not decided, before Governor Walker appointed her to SCOW. Click here. She is studying the issue. Justice Geske and NYU law Professor Stephen Gillers see no problem with this idea. Bradley could just listen to oral argument transcripts and then vote. [continue reading…]
