On Point

Give thanks to Federal Defender Paul Rashkind. He just made every criminal defense lawyer’s job a whole lot easier with his United States Supreme Court Review-Preview-Overview, current through November 25, 2019. Click here.

State v. Chris K. Feller, 2019AP318, 11/27/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This appeal poses an interesting question of law: whether the justification defense available in certain civil forfeiture actions applies where a driver exceeds the speed limit in order to get away from another driver who is dangerously tailgating him on the freeway.  See State v. Brown, 107 Wis. 2d 44, 318 N.W.2d 370. The court of appeals contorts the undisputed facts in order to duck the issue.

State v. Jonathan A. Ortiz-Rodriguez, 2018AP2401-CR, District 1, 11/26/19, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged the defendant with repeated sexual assault of a child, which carries a 25-year minimum term of initial confinement. Trial counsel told the defendant that the State had offered to recommend 5 to 8 years if he would plead to one count of child sexual assault.  But then at sentencing the State argued for 20 years IC and 20 years ES.

Read the NYTimes new article: “Imagine Being on Trial. With Exonerating Evidence Trapped on Your Phone. Public defenders lack access to gadgets and software that could keep their clients out of jail.”

Appellate lawyers, this one’s for you! According to a new article in Stanford Law Review, there are 4 types of ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and Strickland‘s two-part test applies to only one (that’s right one) of them. Read this article and help our courts put Strickland in its proper place.

Quite possibly, yes. Learn more in this new article by a couple of Harvard professors.

La Crosse County v. J.M.A., 2018AP1258, 11/21/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.M.A. appeals his recommitment under ch. 51. He argues the psychiatrist who was the sole witness at his trial provided only conclusory testimony on dangerousness; the court of appeals disagrees.

On November 20, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions: State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60 (a riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle for purposes of the OWI statute) State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61 (the 72-hour filing deadline for […]

Here is a story about a lawyer whose pants ignited during his closing argument at a criminal arson trial. He rushed from the courtroom to extinguish the flames and denied that he had staged a stunt. He faces possible discipline.

The 5th Amendment is an invincible shield against takings claims but not against self-incrimination and double jeopardy claims.  And, of course, the justices political leanings influence their positions. Click SCOWstats for the justice-by-justice analysis.