On Point

State v. Maries D. Addison, 2018AP55-57-CR, 3/26/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals agreed that the 17-month delay in bringing Addison to trial was presumptively prejudicial, but based on the unique facts of this case, it held that his speedy trial rights weren’t violated. Addison did a fine job representing himself (he got “not guilty” verdicts on 5 of 22 counts) so his “incompetency to proceed pro se” claim went nowhere. Plus his freedom of religion claim (right to have a Bible with him during trial) failed because his argument was insufficiently developed. 

State v. Andre L. Thornton, 2018AP871-CR, 3/26/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Thornton of 1st degree reckless homicide, party to a crime. On appeal he argued that Lee, one of the State’s witnesses, had perjured himself 10 years earlier in an unrelated, federal case. Thornton requested a new trial based on this newly-discovered evidence.

Check out some nice ink in the Kenosha News about our Kenosha office and public defenders generally!

State v. Richard H. Harrison Jr., , 2017AP2440-2441-CR, 3/21/19, District 4, (not recommended for publication); Review Granted 8/14/19, reversed, 2020 WI 35; case activity (including briefs)

This post requires some concentration. Harrison was sentenced to 3 years IC (Initial Confinement) and 3 years ES (Extended Supervision) in a 2007 case and a 2008 case. In an unrelated 2010 case he was sentenced to 13 years IC and 7 years ES. And in a 2011 case he received 30 years IC and 10 years ES. The 2010 and 2011 sentences ran consecutive to all other sentences.  Harrison served the IC parts of his 2007 and 2008 cases and started serving his IC in the 2010 case when–lucky him–both his 2010 and his 2011 convictions were vacated. By this point all he had to serve was the ES of his 2007 and 2008 cases.

That’s the (partial) title of a recent University of Chicago research paper examining whether police behavior has changed or whether society is responding to it differently.  To read it, click here.

A new book examines the evidence and alternate suspects in the famous Lizzie Borden case. You can even register how, as a juror, you would have voted at TrialofLizzieBorden.com.

State v. Edward L. Branson, 2018AP873-CR, 3/21/19, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Branson was convicted of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine. He argued that his lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to an officer’s testimony comparing his behavior to that of the passenger in his car where a bag of meth was found. The officer described the passenger as calm, helpful and willing to look him in the eye. In contrast, he described Branson as nervous and failing to make eye contact.

Randall Mathena, Warden v. Lee Boyd Malvo, USSC No. 18-217, certiorari granted 3/18/19

Question presented:

Montgomery v. Alabama, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016)), held that the new constitutional rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Did the the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals err in concluding that Montgomery could be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the Miller rule itself, when the issue presented in Montgomery was only the retroactivity of that rule?

Kansas v. Garcia, USSC No. 17-834, certiorari granted 3/18/19

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) expressly preempts the States from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number, in a prosecution of any person (citizen or alien) when that same, commonly used information also appears in non-IRCA documents, such as state tax forms, leases, and credit applications

2. Whether IRCA impliedly preempts Kansas’s prosecution of respondents.

Kahler v. Kansas, USSC No. 18-6135, certiorari granted 3/18/19

Question presented:

Do the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to abolish the insanity defense?