On Point

Normally we report on that cert petitions that SCOTUS grants, not the ones that it denies. But this is an interesting case. The City of Boise Idaho tried to regulate camping and sleeping in public places. The 9th Circuit held that the enforcement of such laws constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the 8th Amendment when there is  greater number of homeless individuals in the jurisdiction than the number of beds available in shelters. 

You know the grim statistics. an estimated 65% of people in U.S. prisons and jails have a diagnosable substance use disorder and about 15% of men and 30% of women have mental health disorders. According to this new paper by Leo Beletsky at Northeastern University School of Law, correctional facilities’ efforts to address these conditions fall below medically-accepted standards of care. Sound like a substantive due process problem?

So argues Premal Dharia in this new article on Salon.com.  Yay for ending cash bail, increasing diversion programs, and dropping prosecution of minor cases. But these changes won’t have nearly as much impact on the nation’s indigent defense crisis as simply adequately funding public defenders.

State v. Kevin L. Nash, 2018AP731-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 12/10/19, case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented:

When accepting a guilty plea under Alford v. North Carolina, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), a circuit court may find there is a factual basis for the plea only if there is “strong proof of guilt.” May a court find “strong proof of guilt” based only on the information contained in the criminal complaint, or must the court hear additional evidence before it can make that finding?

State v. Ryan M. Muth, 2019AP875-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 12/11/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (based on petition and  cross-petition for review):

1. Wisconsin’s marital property statutes provide that income accrued during marriage belongs to both spouses. Wisconsin’s restitution statute permits crime victims to recover “income lost” from the “filing of charges or cooperating in the investigation and prosecution of the crime.” Where a crime causes a person’s death, can the deceased person’s adult children recover their spouse’s lost income  as restitution?

2. Where crime victims accept a civil settlement for lost wages and expenses, and the victims also seek restitution for lost wages and expenses, and where the defendant asserts “accord and sanctification,” does the defendant have to produce “extrinsic evidence” showing that the wages and expenses the victim received in the civil settlement are the same wages and expenses the victim seeks as criminal restitution?

State v. Alfonso Lorenzo Brooks, 2018AP1774, review of a per curiam decision granted 12/10/2019; reversed 6/25/20; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented:

Whether the community caretaker exception permits law enforcement to inventory and tow a vehicle after discovering that the driver does  not have a valid license, when the vehicle is lawfully parked and not obstructing traffic?

In case you missed it, the Wisconsin Justice Initiative and the American  Constitution Society have a “pot page” showing the number of cannabis cases each Wisconsin County prosecuted in 2019 and the race of the defendants.  Spoiler alert: African Americans comprise 7% of Wisconsin’s population but 21% of defendants in cannabis cases.See the Dec. 3rd article here.

Actually, the DA argued:  “My job is to show the truth. On the other hand, the defense attorneys’ jobs are to manipulate the truth. Their job is to shroud the truth. Their job is [to] confuse jurors. Their job is to do whatever they have to—without regard for the truth—to get a not guilty verdict.” The South Carolina Supreme Court had the good sense to overturn this defendant’s conviction for order and order a new trial.

You’ve read a lot about the use of algorithms at the sentencing stage of criminal proceedings, but they are also used at the bail and parole stages. This new paper looks at the bias embedded in algorithms (including the STATIC-99R) and zeroes in on our own State v. Loomis.

State v. Stephan I. Roberson, 2019 WI 102, 12/3/19, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion, 2017AP1894, case activity (including briefs)

The result here is simple, and expected, given the current makeup of the court: a five-two majority to overturn State v. Dubose, 2005 WI 126, 285 Wis. 2d 143, 699 N.W.2d 582. Dubose held that “show up” identifications–those where the police present a witness with only one suspect–were inherently suggestive, and identifications so obtained would be inadmissible unless circumstances rendered the procedure “necessary.” So, now, Wisconsin courts will review claims that a show-up identification should be excluded under the test of State v. Wolverton, 193 Wis. 2d 234, 264, 533 N.W.2d 167 (1995): a defendant must carry the initial burden to show the procedure was impermissibly suggestive, and if he or she does, the state must then prove that the identification is nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances.