….the next wave (no pun intended) of forensic science, discussed in this interesting article about digital voiceprinting.
State v. Jesse E. Bodie, 2021AP1656-CR, District 4, 4/13/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A state patrol officer unlawfully frisked Bodie before allowing Bodie to sit in his squad car because, under the circumstances of this case, the officer didn’t have an objectively reasonable basis to suspect Bodie was armed and dangerous. [continue reading…]
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Antonio S. Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County and Honorable Ellen K. Berz, 2022AP1999-W, PFR granted 03/31/2023; COA decision affirmed, 2024 WI 14, case activity (including briefs, petition for review, and state’s response)
Davis was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors in Dane County. He applied for an attorney through the State Public Defender a day after his arrest, but made his initial appearance before a court commissioner without appointed trial counsel. That same day, Davis’ case was assigned to Judge Ellen K. Berz. Counsel was appointed to represent Davis 65 days later, and after consultation with his newly appointed counsel, Davis filed a request for substitution. Judge Berz denied the request as “untimely.” The supreme court will now review whether the delayed appointment of counsel provides an exception to the strict adherence to Wis. Stat. § 971.20(4)’s deadline to file a request for substitution. [continue reading…]
State v. Antwan Eugene Gill, 2022AP654-Cr, 4/6/23, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity (including briefs)
Gill was convicted for possession of THC and for operating a vehicle with a detectable amount of THC in his blood. He argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to move for suppression of the results of field sobriety and blood tests and for failing to exploit inconsistences between an officer’s testimony and his report and squad-cams footage. The court of appeals rejected both claims. [continue reading…]
State v. Rasheem D. Davis, 2023 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
Addressing an issue of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that the circuit court’s order dismissing charges against Davis that was rescinded minutes later didn’t deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. [continue reading…]
State v. Robert K. Nietzold, Sr., 2023 WI 22, 03/28/2023, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the state agreed to “not recommend a specific term of imprisonment.” At sentencing, the state argued for 27 years imprisonment, consisting of 12 years initial confinement and 15 years extended supervision. Nietzold objected, was denied a postconviction motion hearing in the circuit court, but the court of appeals reversed and ordered resentencing before a different judge. Now, a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court holds that the state “cured” its undisputed material and substantial breach because the prosecutor “acknowledged the blunder and modified the State’s recommendation to an undefined prison term-exactly what Nietzold agreed to.” (Opinion, ¶14). [continue reading…]
State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, 2023 WI 24, 3/31/22, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
This split decision is important for two reasons. First, it authorizes the State to penalize the defendant for exercising his 5th Amendment right to remain silent at trial. Second, it foreshadows how Justice Hagedorn will likely rule in cases involving a broad range of criminal and civil constitutional rights that were established after the framers wrote the United State Constitution. [continue reading…]
Richard Shirley v. Lizzie Tegels, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 18-1713, 3/8/23
Shirley was shackled while he testified at his jury trial for 1st degree reckless homicide. In this federal habeas appeal, he argued that the shackling violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense. The 7th Circuit denied relief because no SCOTUS case clearly establishes that shackling a defendant while he is testifying violates that right. [continue reading…]
