On Point blog, page 7 of 7
SCOTUS: “Straw” purchase prohibition applies even when true purchaser may lawfully own gun
Abramski v. United States, USSC No. 12-1493, 2014 WL 2676779 (June 16, 2014), affirming United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)
Resolving a split between federal circuit courts of appeal, the Supreme Court holds that the prohibition in 18 U. S. C. § 922(a)(6) against making false statements about “any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale” of a firearm applies to a “straw” purchaser—a person who buys a gun on someone else’s behalf while falsely claiming that it is for himself—even if the true buyer could have purchased the gun legally.
Sec. 973.015 expunction denied based on new, court-imposed deadline and filing requirements
State v. Kearney Hemp, 2014 WI App 34, petition for review granted 6/12/14, reversed 2014 WI 129; case activity
Every so often there’s an opinion that makes you shake your head in disbelief. This is one of them.
Hemp was convicted with 1 count of possession with intent to deliver THC, aka hemp. A court granted conditional jail time,
State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2012AP1582, petition for review granted
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue: Whether under § 973.015 the circuit court has the discretion to withhold its decision on expungement until after the defendant completes probation?
Wis. Stat. § 973.015 authorizes the circuit court to expunge the record of a defendant under the age of 25 in certain situations. Matasek says the statute gives the circuit court discretion to defer its expunction decision until after the offender successfully completes probation.
Court must decide at the time of sentencing whether a conviction may be expunged under § 973.015(1)(a)
State v. Andrew J. Matasek, 2013 WI App 63, petition for review granted, affirmed, 2014 WI 27; case activity
The plain language of § 973.015 requires the circuit court to decide at the time of sentencing whether the defendant’s conviction can be expunged on successful completion of the sentence:
¶9 Matasek is correct that Wis.
Arrest – police officer acting outside of his jurisdiction; fresh pursuit versus mutual aid, § 175.40(2) and (6); sufficiency of evidence of fresh pursuit
Village of Spring Green v. Michael D. Deignan, 2012AP1303, District 4, 2/28/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects the claim that § 175.40(6), which authorizes an officer to arrest or provide aid or assistance anywhere in the state under written inter-agency agreements, should govern the lawfulness of defendant’s arrest because it is more specific than Wis. Stat. § 175.40(2), which authorizes an officer to arrest while engaging “in fresh pursuit” anywhere in the state:
¶14 ….
Summary Contempt, §§ 785.01(1)(a), 785.04(2)(b); Conduct Prompted by the Court
Cesar Deleon v. Circuit Court for Brown County, 2012AP278, District 3, 10/10/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Summary Contempt, §§ 785.01(1)(a), 785.04(2)(b) – “Unit” of Sanctionable Conduct
Separate, consecutive punishments meted out for each of 11 profane utterances and 1 act of spitting during brief exchange with judge upheld, against argument they “amounted only to a single act of contempt because they took place during a short period of time.”