On Point blog, page 34 of 53
“High crime area”; “recognizing police presence”; “security adjustment”: Buzz phrases not enough to justify Terry stop
State v. Patrick E. Gordon, 2014 WI App 44; case activity
The circuit court’s findings—Gordon was in a high-crime area; he and his friends “recognized the police presence”; and, as a result, Gordon engaged in a “security adjustment,” which is “a conscious or unconscious movement that an individual does when they’re confronted by law enforcement when they’re typically carrying a weapon” and involves placing a hand over the place the gun is to make sure it’s still there (¶¶3-7,
Federal district court grants habeas relief because Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ unreasonably determined facts in appeal addressing defendant’s request to reinstate right to counsel
Joel D. Rhodes v. Michael Meisner, No. 13-C-0161 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 12, 2014)
Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, has ordered a new trial for Joel Rhodes, concluding that in State v. Rhodes, 2011 WI App 145, 337 Wis. 2d 594, 807 N.W.2d 1, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably determined that the trial court properly exercised his discretion in denying Rhodes’s request to reinstate his right to counsel on the eve of trial.
Committed sex offender entitled to discharge hearing based on re-evaluation with updated actuarial
State v. Herbert O. Richard, 2014 WI App 28; case activity
Richard is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition for discharge because the independent psychologist’s opinion that amendments to the Static-99 show Richard’s risk to reoffend is below the legal threshold constitutes a fact on which a court or jury may conclude that Richard does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person,
Police lacked reasonable suspicion to seize driver of car in a parking lot suspected to be the site of illegal drug activity
State v. Chonsea Jerome King, 2013AP1068-CR, District 4, 2/13/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
A police officer saw a car parked in a lot linked by “numerous [pieces of] intelligence” to illegal drug activity. It was 9:25 p.m. The officer watched it for about five minutes, but did not see anyone exit the vehicle or any activity outside the vehicle, though they did observe the interior lights in the car turn on and off “a couple [of] times.” (¶3).
Court of appeals reverses order for involunatry medication
Eau Claire County v. Mary S., 2013AP2098, District 3, 1/28/14 (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity
Mary S. was placed under a Chapter 51 mental health commitment and involuntary medication order in 2011, and those orders were extended once. But when the County sought to extend the orders again, Mary objected and argued that the County, which bore the burden of proof, failed to establish that Mary was incompetent to refuse medication,
Resentencing required because PSI included defendant’s compelled statements to probation agent
State v. Danny Robert Alexander, 2013AP843-CR, District 1, 1/28/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/14, reversed, 2015 WI 6; case activity
Alexander was on probation when he was charged with forgery. He pled to the forgery and a PSI was prepared. (¶2). Attached to the PSI were statements the defendant made to his probation agent about two other forgeries.
SCOTUS unanimously reverses 8th Circuit’s intepretation of causation required by mandatory minimum provision of Controlled Substances Act
Marcus Burrage v. United States, USSC 12-7515, 1/27/14, reversing United States v. Burrage, 687 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2012).
Docket here. SCOTUSblog analysis here.
The Uniform Controlled Substances Act imposes a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant who unlawfully distributes a Schedule I or II drug, when “death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance.”
Trial counsel’s failure to raise viable defense means defendant gets new trial
State v. Fontaine Washington, 2011AP2462-CR, District 1, 1/17/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Washington fled from officers trying to stop the car he was driving. (¶2). Before Washington was finally stopped and arrested, the officers in pursuit saw him throw something “shiny” out the car window; a search of the area where the object was thrown turned up a gun about 30 feet off the roadway.
Federal district court grants habeas relief based on violation of Confrontation Clause; calls Wisconsin court’s harmless error analysis “a sterilized, post-hoc rationalization for upholding the result”
Mark D. Jensen v. James Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013)
Judge William Griesbach of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, has ordered a new trial for Mark Jensen, who was convicted of killing his wife Julie based in part on the use of oral and written statements she made before her death in which she told police she suspected her husband was trying to kill her.
Capitol rotunda singer gets civil pre-trial discovery in State’s action to collect forfeiture
State v. Anica C. C. Bausch, 2014 WI App 12; case activity
Bausch participated in a “Solidarity Sing Along” at the State Capitol in the fall of 2012. The Capitol Police cited her for violating Wis. Admin. Code ADM sec. 2.14(2)(v). Bausch pled “not guilty” and served the State with requests for admissions, interrogatories, and production of documents. The State responded with a “Motion in Opposition to Application of Civil Discovery.”