On Point

Speaking of Zoom, due to the pandemic SCOW will begin holding oral arguments over Zoom, and they will be streamed over Wisconsin Eye. One will be Milton Eugene Warren v. Michael Meisner, Appeal No. 2019AP567, which concerns the confusion SCOW created with its decision in State v. Starks. See our post on the decision to […]

This post by Alan Rozenshstein on Lawfare explains how “the U.S. is struggling with a ‘coronavirus trilemma”: It wants to protect lives, ease social isolation, and protect privacy and civil liberties but it can only do two of those at the same time.

United States v. Terrill A. Rickmon, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 19-2054, 3/11/20

Police stopped a vehicle because it was emerging from the source of a ShotSpotter alert. The 7th Circuit holds that the totality of the circumstances gave the officer responding to the scene reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop.

This NACDL article just made the top 10 downloads in the criminal procedure e-journal: “Please Tweet Responsibly: The Social and Professional Ethics of Public Defenders Using Client Information in Social Media Advocacy.” Read it here. 

Listen up, appellate lawyers! Late on April 2nd, SCOW issued another order adjusting appellate court operations due to the pandemic. The first order, issued March 17th, modified working hours for the court of appeals/supreme court clerk’s office and extended many appellate deadlines by 21 days.

Here is the meat of the April 2nd order:

Two national papers are reporting an upside to “stay at home” orders. Read more about their investigations here. 

On March 22, 2020, the supreme court issued an order temporarily suspending or continuing all jury trials scheduled to commence between March 22 and May 22, 2020. As a follow-up, on March 31 the supreme court issued a new order adopting an interim rule that suspends until further notice the following statutory deadlines for the conduct of non-criminal jury trials:

Kahler v. Kansas, USSC No. 18-6135, 2020 WL 1325817, 3/23/20, affirming State v. Kahler, 410 P.3d 105 (Kan. 2018); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Kansas amended its insanity defense to limit to defendants whose mental illness prevents them from forming the required intent to commit a crime. A majority of the Supreme Court holds that does not violate due process.

Many thanks to Mike Tobin, retired Deputy State Public Defender and co-author of Wisconsin Criminal Practice and Procedure for today’s thoughtful and timely guest post:

Two main resources are available to assist attorneys in preparing for hearings conducted by video or telephone:

On March 25th, SCOW issued two new orders. One postponed the April and May bar admission ceremonies and authorized the admission of qualified applicants in absentia. The other authorized court reporters transcribing depositions to administer oaths via remote audio visual equipment.