Whether the Eighth Amendment requires that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances “need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” as the Kansas Supreme Court held here, or instead whether the Eighth Amendment is satisfied by instructions that, in context, make clear that each juror must individually assess and weigh any mitigating circumstances
Whether the trial court’s decision not to sever the sentencing phase of the co-defendant brothers’ trial here—a decision that comports with the traditional approach preferring joinder in circumstances like this—violated an Eighth Amendment right to an “individualized sentencing” determination and was not harmless in any event. [continue reading…]
SCOTUS declines to sanction Foley & Lardner, but cautions lawyers: state your petitions in plain terms; avoid obscure acronyms and convoluted sentences! Here.
Law firm success rates in SCOW here.
DA’s alteration of interrogation transcript was no joking matter. Case dismissed here.
“The Executioner’s Dilemma.” A new study on botched injection procedures.
How to be a “suckcessful” lawyer here!
Justices Breyer and Kennedy: “The criminal justice system isn’t working!” Read their views here.
The 5 worst justices in U.S. Supreme Court history? Not Breyer and Kennedy. Find out who they are here.
Too old to commit a crime. See why offenders age out of trouble here.
Rock County v. J.N.B., 2014AP774, District 4, 3/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Having rejected the no merit report filed by J.N.B.’s appellate counsel and ordered counsel to brief the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, the court of appeals declares “the County presented ample evidence demonstrating that J.N.B. is dangerous because he evidences such ‘impaired judgment, manifested by evidence of a pattern of recent acts or omissions, that there is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury to himself,’” § 51.20(1)(a)2.c.
Lawrence Owens v. Stephen Duncan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-1419, 3/23/15, cert. petition granted, 10/1/15; petition dismissed as improvidently granted, 1/20/16
The Seventh Circuit grants habeas relief to Owens, who was convicted of murder after a bench trial, because the trial judge’s finding of guilt was based on evidence that did not exist and thus denied Owens’s right to due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 567 (1986) (“one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial,” quoting Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485 (1978)). [continue reading…]
State v. Antwan D. Hopson, 2014AP1430-CR, District 2, 3/25/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Even though Hopson was not formally under arrest at the time police searched him in a manner that exceeded the allowable scope of a frisk, the search was legal because the police had probable cause to arrest Hopson for possession of marijuana.
1) Did the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), adopt a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people sentenced as juveniles to life in prison without parole?
2) Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect to Miller?
State v. Johnny Jerome Jones, 2014AP342-CR, 3/24/14, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs
Jones turned himself in for a hit-and-run accident that resulted in death. During the interrogation, and after being Mirandized, he asked the detective: “So ya’ll can get a public pretender right now?” The detective laughed and replied: “You said it right, pretender . . . . they’re called public defenders . . . Um, we obviously due to the time right now, we can’t, um . . . .” Jones moved to suppress his subsequent statement and lost at the circuit court and on appeal. [continue reading…]
State v. Tyron James Powell, 2014AP1053-CR, District 1, 3/24/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for docket and briefs
After obtaining two mistrials, Powell probably thought he’d get lucky the third time around. Instead, he got a conviction followed by a court of appeals decision that rejected his arguments on impeachment evidence, on the admission of his prior convictions and on his trial lawyer’s ineffectiveness for failing to file a suppression motion.
