On Point

State v. Alberto E. Rivera, 2018AP952-CR, 4/30, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The State charged Rivera with a homicide and an attempted homicide that occurred in 2015. Before trial, it moved to introduce “other acts” evidence–a homicide that Rivera committed in 1997. The trial court tentatively denied the motion. But then Rivera’s counsel made a “strategic” decision to offer the evidence as part of his defense.  So, as you might guess, the appellate challenge regarding the admission of this evidence failed.

State v. John Patrick Wright, 2019 WI 45, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court holds (again) that, as part of any routine traffic stop, police may ask a driver whether he or she is carrying a weapon.

The transcript of the oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin doesn’t do Andy Hinkel’s argument justice. He stayed impressively cool under tough questioning. Hear for yourself here! If you prefer an eyewitness account of Andy’s argument, click here. His wife, Shelley Fite, a federal defender, blogged about it on the Appellate Section’s new blog.

Today the ACLU filed a 59-page class action complaint against Wisconsin parole commissioners in federal.  It’s a “must read” for attorneys who defend juveniles. Among other things, it cites to a great deal of legal and scientific research on juvenile versus adult offenders. It also alleges that COMPAS assessments appear to treat youth as an “aggravating factor” and only a “miniscule number” of parole-eligible juvenile lifers have been paroled during the past 15 years. Most die in prison.

State v. Gerald J. Vanderhoef, 2016AP2052-CR, District 1, 4/30/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Vanderhoef’s silence in response to the “Informing the Accused” form constituted a refusal to consent to a chemical test, so the subsequent blood draw was unlawful. However, the state subpoenaed the results of his urine test, and that evidence was admissible.

State v. Michael Exhavier Dunn, 2018AP783-CR, 4/30/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The lead issues in this appeal are whether the jury pool for Dunn’s trial represented a fair cross section of the community and whether Dunn was denied equal protection when the DA struck 2 of the 3 African-Americans from the 30-person jury pool for his case.

State v. Mose B. Coffee, 2019 WI App 25; affirmed 6/5/20; case activity (including briefs)

This published decision should make for an interesting petition for review. The court of appeals rejects a prior unpublished opinion, State v. Hinderman, to hold:

¶13 . . . [W]hen an officer lawfully arrests a driver for OWI, even if alcohol is the only substance detected in relation to the driver, a search of the interior of the vehicle, including any containers therein, is lawful because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the offense of OWI might be found. Thus, the search of Coffee’s vehicle in this case was lawful and the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.

Looks like NYU Professor Ann Washington has done the hard work for you. Her new article, How to Argue With an Algorithm: Lessons from the Compass-ProPublica Debate, strives to inform courtroom arguments over the integrity of algorithms used to predict risk during the sentencing process.

Speaking of algorithms, a few weeks ago SCOWstats ran SCOW’s majority opinions through one called Linguistic Word Inquiry Count to determine which justice used, for example, the biggest or most emotional words or displayed the most analytical thinking, clout and so forth. In this post, SCOWstats applies the same tool to dissenting opinions and finds […]

Who knew the law librarians at the Library of Congress had their own blog-In Custodia Legis? History lovers will enjoy this post about a writ Lincoln wrote.