On Point blog, page 1 of 3
Guest Post: SPD Immigration Practice Coordinators on Immigration Law Developments
With a new administration comes changes to our immigration laws. Fortunately, the SPD’s Immigration Practice Coordinators are here to provide you with an updated analysis of the many legal developments relevant to our clients.
Guest Post: Kathleen Pakes on an important NJ case labeling AHT dogma “junk science”
State of New Jersey v. Darryl Nieves/ State of New Jersey v. Michael Cifelli, Docket Nos. A-2069-21 & A-2936-21, 9/13/2023 (available on Westlaw as 2023 WL 5947996)
This is a guest post by Attorney Kathleen Pakes, Director of the Assigned Counsel Division
In a must-read opinion, the New Jersey appellate court lays out the shortcomings with the SBS/AHT dogma, upholding the trial court’s decision to not admit what it viewed as “junk science.”
Defense win: Circuit court lacked authority to sanction defendant for accepting a plea offer made after the deadline for plea negotiations had passed
State v. Suzanne Lee Shegonee, 2022AP361-CR, District 4, 10/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is a guest post by Katie York, head of the SPD’s Appellate Division.
The circuit court sanctioned Shegonee $500 for accepting a new plea offer 3 days prior to her scheduled jury trial. The state made the offer after the court-imposed deadline for resolving the case. The court of appeals recognized the circuit court’s understandable concern about time pressures, number of cases, and the need for circuit courts to keep cases moving in a timely manner. However, it concluded the sanction imposed on Shegonee was “just outside the bounds of any authority for such a sanction” (¶¶1, 18) and thus reversed the sanction order.
SCOW disapproves “stipulated trial” workaround for guilty-plea waiver rule
State v. Jacob Richard Beyer, 2021 WI 59, 6/15/21, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
On Point is proud to present a guest post by Tom Aquino of the Madison appellate office:
Diane Fremgen guest posts on the pagination of appellate records in the era of e-filing
Since July 1, 2016, circuit court clerks have been permitted to transmit documents and records electronically to the court of appeals. When that occurs, the court of appeals paginates the documents in the appellate record. Sometimes a document is shared among multiple appeals. Originally the system was designed to paginate a document permanently–one time. Therefore, in consolidated and companion cases, documents used in multiple circuit court records had incorrect pagination.
Mike Tobin Guest Posts: How Seifert might apply outside the delivery room
Three separate opinions in Seifert v. Balink result in a 5-2 majority upholding admission of expert medical testimony under the Daubert standard. Because Seifert is the first Wisconsin Supreme Court case interpreting this standard for admission of expert testimony, it provides guidance to lower courts and to practitioners regarding the 2011 statutory changes.
Devon Lee Guest Posts: Communicating publicly-known information about your client
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently denied Rule petition 15-04, which sought to amend SCR 20:1.9 governing a lawyer’s duties to her former clients. In this post, SPD Legal Counsel, Devon Lee, explains that the current rule does not prevent the types of communications highlighted by the petitioners.
Devon Lee Guest Posts: New supreme court rules governing attorneys’ use of technology
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently amended portions of SCR Chapter 20 that, among other things, govern the use of technology in a law practice. SPD Legal Counsel, Devon Lee, explains what these changes mean for lawyers who use email, cloud computing, and/or social media. Isn’t that everybody?
Jeremy Perri Guest Posts: SCOW says flip phones are “computerized communication systems”
State v. McKellips, 2016 WI 51, 6/28/16, reversing a published court of appeals decision, 2015 WI App 31; case activity (including briefs)
SCOW here defines the phrase “computerized communication system” by separately defining each word, and then lumping together those definitions to conclude that text messages sent with a flip phone constitute “use of a computerized communication system.” It concludes that Wis. Stat. §948.075 is understood by persons of ordinary intelligence, and is therefore not unconstitutional; and that the circuit court’s jury instructions, while not perfect, were close enough. Additionally, SCOW reminds the court of appeals that discretionary reversals under §752.35 are only for “exceptional cases.”
SCOTUS: Decision striking down ACCA residual clause is retroactive
Welch v. United States, USSC No. 15-6418, 2016 WL 1551144 (April 18, 2016), vacating and remanding an unpublished order of the 11th Circuit; Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Associate Federal Defender Shelley Fite has kindly agreed to provide her take on the high court’s latest:
Federal defenders and procedure wonks naturally appreciate Welch v. United States, in which the (7–1) Supreme Court held that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. But (read on!) the case does have some application for state practitioners—at least those who do post-conviction work.