On Point

Instead of 90 days, petitioners now have 150 days  from the date of the lower court judgment, order denying discretionary review, or order denying a timely petition for rehearing to file their petition for write of certiorari. This relaxed deadline will remain in place indefinitely. SCOTUS has modified other rules too. Read the full order here.

UPDATE: Scotusblog notes that, for civil cert petitions (which include habeas corpus cases and mental commitments) the 150 days runs into the maximum statutory deadline allowable.

This was bound to happen. A Waupun prison employee has tested positive of COVID-19, which puts our clients incarcerated there at risk. Read more here.  Meanwhile the ACLU is calling for the DOC to release some prisoners to guard against the rapid spread of the disease. Read more on that here.

This change will not apply to people who have committed crimes or who pose a threat to public safety. And ICE says it will not carry out enforcement operation near health care facilities because it wants people to seek care. Read more on the Immigration Professors blog here.

Thank goodness Wisconsin moved to e-filing before the pandemic. However, some documents still have to be notarized before they can be e-filed. Is it possible to do that without going to the office? Yes, in the states that have online video notaries. Read more here. So far, Wisconsin is not one of them.

Due to the public health emergency created by COVID-19, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided to limit temporarily the number of people who are physically present in appellate court offices and to modify temporarily certain appellate procedures. For the court’s order, click here. Our summary and explanation is below.

Concerned about your clients? There is good reason to be. The Marshall Project just published this piece on what it is like to be under quarantine in a Washington state prison where a prison employee tested positive for COVID-19.

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2018AP2104, petition to review a published court of appeals decision granted 3/17/20; case activity

Issues:

1. To prove that a person meets the criteria for commitment under Chapter 980, must the state present expert opinion testimony that the person is “dangerous” as defined under ch. 980?
2. Should the standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence of dangerousness in a Chapter 980 case be changed to require that a reviewing court conduct a de novo review of whether the evidence satisfies the legal standard of dangerousness?

State v. Brian Halverson, 2018AP858-CR, review of a published court of appeals opinion granted 3/17/20; affirmed 1/29/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

Whether a person who is interrogated by police while incarcerated is “in custody” and entitled to a Miranda warning under either the federal or state constitution?

Whether, under the totality of the circumstances, Halverson, who was incarcerated in jail was “in custody” when police interrogated him?

State v. Mitchell L. Christen, 2019AP1767-Cr, 3/17/20, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); review granted 9/16/16; case activity (including briefs)

Interesting case. Section 941.20(1)(b) makes operating or going armed with a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant a misdemeanor.  Christen argued that the statute violates the 2nd Amendment “as applied” to anyone who engages in the prohibited conduct while inside his or her home. The State declined to file a response brief, which means it conceded the point. Still, the court of appeals rejected Christen’s argument and affirmed.

State v. Richard A. Boie, 2019AP520, 3/5/20, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Boie appeals his jury-trial conviction for repeated sexual assault of the same child and the denial of his postconviction motion. He raises issues arising from the videotaped interview of his accuser, admitted under Wis. Stat. § 908.08. On the video, the then-six-year-old described assaults occurring when she was four and five years old. At trial, though, the now-nine-year old testified she couldn’t remember some of the things she spoke about in the video. Boie argues the statutory guidelines for admission weren’t met, and separately that his lawyer was ineffective for not moving for mistrial once the memory problems became clear.