On Point

Scotusblog’s Amy Howe has published this post about today’s oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which addresses the constitutionality of our implied consent statute’s authorization for taking a blood sample from an unconscious person. A transcript of the argument is here.

Brown County DHHS v. L.F.H., Sr., 2019AP145, District 3, 4/23/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The County filed a petition to terminate L.F.H.’s parental rights based on a continuing denial of his periods of physical placement or visitation with his son, Leon (a pseudonym). The circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment at the grounds phase, but that was error because the County failed to prove the CHIPS dispositional order satisfied the requirements of § 48.415(4).

J.P. v. A.P., 2018AP1775 through 2018AP1778, District 4, 4/18/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this unusual case, the court of appeals agrees with a parent in a TPR proceeding that the circuit court may not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because of an order issued in another state governs custody of the children.

ASPD Andy Hinkel will argue Mitchell v. Wisconsin to the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday.  The issue is whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Click here to read SCOTUSblog’s preview of the case. It points out that 29 states have […]

State v. Nelson Garcia, Jr., 2019 WI 40, 4/19/19; case activity (including briefs) ASPD Pam Moorshead briefed this appeal and argued it to SCOW less than two weeks ago. The lead issue was whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon the finding of probable cause and setting of bail by a court commissioner. Justice […]

If you’re seeking review in SCOTUS, be advised that the court recently changed its rules. Read SCOTUSblog’s summary here, which links to the amendments.

According to a new empirical study, the prosecution of misdemeanors varies widely from jurisdiction. And they disproportionately impact the poor and people of color. Read all about it here.

You know Sackler–the former chairman of Purdue-Pharma, maker of Oxycontin. You also know John Oliver, which means you probably want to want to see this dramatic reading of Sackler’s deposition!

You don’t have to say that 3 times fast . . . or slow. We all know it’s true. Here is a study that confirms the point. While the article focuses on death penalty cases, its conclusions apply broadly. Want to challenge Strickland? This article is a place to start.

Here is The New Yorker’s review of Emily Bazelon’s new book, Charged, which looks at two cases where prosecutorial misconduct put 2 people through hell, why bail is hard to get, and why public defenders are often inadequate.