On Point blog, page 23 of 49
Guest Post: Daniel D. Blinka, “Bullcoming Arrives, But Where’s the Path?”
On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of Bullcoming v. New Mexico by Daniel D. Blinka, Professor of Law, Marquette University of Virginia. (Cross-posted at Marquette.) Professor Brandon L. Garrett, Virginia, also has a Guest Post on Bullcoming. Feel free to submit comments in the box at the end of the Post.
Note that issues discussed in these posts will be further refined by the recent grant of certiorari in Williams v.
Guest Post: Brandon L. Garrett, “No Surrogate Forensics”
On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of Bullcoming v. New Mexico by Brandon L. Garrett, Professor of Law, University of Virginia. (Cross-posted at ACS. On Point has made a minor editing change in the first sentence, to add the date of decision.) Professor Garret has previously guest-posted on DNA and habeas procedure. Professor Daniel D. Blinka, Marquette,
SVP: Discharge Petition
State v. Charles M. Ermers, Jr., 2011 WI App 113 (recommended for publication); for Ermers: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
A ch. 980 discharge hearing requires that the petitioner allege “facts from which the court or jury may conclude the person’s condition has changed since the date of his or her initial commitment order so that the person does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person,”
OWI – Probable Cause, PBT
State v. Ryan Stefan Roberts, 2010AP2899, District 4, 6/30/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberts: Bruce J. Rosen, Susan C. Blesener; case activity
Request for preliminary breath test supported by probable cause, despite somewhat inconclusive field test results, in view of strong odor of alcohol emitted by Roberts along with his admission of drinking. County of Jefferson v. Renz,
Reasonable Suspicion – Temporary Stop
State v. Lisa K. Beckman, 2010AP2564-CR, District 2, 6/29/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Beckman: Gary Grass; case activity
¶12 Here, Schubel observed Beckman’s vehicle at 11:40 p.m. on a Sunday night in a parking lot behind one closed business before it proceeded to the parking lot of another closed business. There were no lights on at either location. Schubel considered this activity in light of his knowledge that there had been reports of burglaries of small businesses in the area.
Plea-Withdrawal – Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. John D. Tiggs, Jr., 2010AP1530, District 2, 6/29/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity
Tiggs knew that DNA test results would be released in mere hours, yet chose to enter his no-contest plea. His postconviction motion to withdraw the plea, based on a theory that the test results amount to newly discovered evidence, fails to satisfy the requirements that the evidence was discovered after conviction and that the defendant wasn’t negligent in seeking the evidence.
Sentence Credit, Previously Imposed Sentence, § 973.04; Double Jeopardy
State v. Charles Lamar, 2011 WI 50, affirming 2009 WI App 133; for Lamar: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Sentence Credit, Previously Imposed Sentence, § 973.04
Two concurrent sentences were initially imposed following guilty pleas to aggravated battery and misdemeanor bail jumping, both as repeater. The Agg Batt plea was withdrawn on postconviction motion, but the bail jumping wasn’t challenged.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 6/11
court of appeals publication orders, 6/29/11
On Point posts from this list:
2011 WI App 78 State v. Marilee Devries
2011 WI App 79 State v. Andre D. Hansbrough
2011 WI App 80 State v. Yancy D. Freland
2011 WI App 81 State v. Eliseo Peralta
2011 WI App 86 State v.
Frisk – Auto; Plain View
State v. Deandre A. Buchanan, 2011 WI 49, affirming unpublished CIA decision; for Buchanan: Tyler William Wickman; case activity
Frisk – Auto
Frisk of Buchanan, following routine traffic stop for speeding, was supported by reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous.
¶3 We hold that under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trooper’s observation of Buchanan’s furtive movements and visible nervousness,
Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, cert granted 6/28/11
Decision below: People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. S. Ct. No. 107550)
Question Presented (by the Court):
Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause.