by admin
on March 3, 2022
State v. Jennifer A. Jenkins, 2020AP1243-CR, 3/1/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jenkins, convicted of OWI 2nd, raised some interesting and unusual challenges to the trial court’s order denying her motion to suppress. (1) The arresting officer’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law. (2) He unlawfully stopped her car outside of his jurisdiction. And (3) her blood draw was painful, inordinately long, and therefore unreasonable. The court of appeals rejected all of them. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 28, 2022
State v. Shane Allan Stroik, 2022 WI App 11; case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Stroik of the sexual assault of a then-five-year old girl, “Amy,” the daughter of his girlfriend. Postconviction, Stroik brought a slew of claims for a new trial; the circuit court rejected them all. The court of appeals now holds that trial counsel performed deficiently in not obtaining a report from child protective services detailing an accusation Amy had made about her cousin a few months before she accused Stroik–an accusation about an assault quite similar in its details to the one she would later say Stroik committed. The court also finds a reasonable probability that this evidence would have resulted in an acquittal, and thus grants Stroik a new trial. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 24, 2022
State v. Ronald Henry Griffin, 2020AP1750-CR, 2/22/22, District 1; case activity (including briefs)
Griffin and his friend, Taylor, were charged with sexually assaulting T.H. Taylor pled and agreed to testify against Griffin, who went to trial and was found guilty. He filed a pro se appeal arguing that (1) the State failed to turn over Brady evidence (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the circuit court erroneously admitted two letters, which were not authenticated. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction but Judge Dugan filed a concurrence on the third issue. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 24, 2022
State v. N.H., 2021AP2035-2039, 2/22/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A trial court terminated N.H.’s parental rights to her 5 children. On appeal she argued that there was insufficient evidence to support findings that she was an unfit parent and that terminating her rights was in the best interest of her children. The court of appeals affirmed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 24, 2022
This week’s edition of SCOWstats focuses on judicial activism as seen in the justices’ votes on petitions for original actions. Typically it is conservative justices who call liberal justices “judicial activists.” SCOWstats’s analysis of original action petitions filed in 2020-2021 suggests that it is conservative justices who want to dispense with procedure in order to make law. But for the grace of Justice Hagedorn, they might have succeeded in several important cases.
{ }
by admin
on February 24, 2022
And for something a little different, here’s a story about a naked lawyer in Florida.
{ }
by admin
on February 23, 2022
On review of a court of appeals certification; affirmed 5/23/23; case activity (including briefs);
Issue:
Whether Wis. Stat. § 301.45(5)(b)1, which mandates lifetime sex-offender registration where a person has been convicted of a sex offense “on 2 or more separate occasions,” applies when a person’s only eligible convictions are entered on multiple guilty pleas in the same case. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on February 23, 2022
State v. Christina Marie Wiederin, case activity (including briefs)
Wiederin was a driver in a fatal head-on collision. She was seriously injured in the crash and was trapped inside the car for nearly an hour afterward; she was then taken by ambulance to a hospital in Minnesota, where she would undergo medical imaging followed by surgery. The court of appeals now affirms the trial court’s conclusion that the circumstances of the crash, transportation and treatment presented an exigency such that the sheriff’s sergeant who drew her blood could reasonably conclude seeking a warrant would risk losing evidence, and that the draw was thus valid under Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149 (2013). [continue reading…]
{ }
