On Point

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State v. Richard H. Harrison Jr., , 2017AP2440-2441-CR, 3/21/19, District 4, (not recommended for publication); Review Granted 8/14/19, reversed, 2020 WI 35; case activity (including briefs)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State v. Edward L. Branson, 2018AP873-CR, 3/21/19, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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?

Evangelisto Ramos v. Louisiana, USSC No. 18-5924, certiorari granted 3/18/19, Reversed 4/20/20

Question presented:

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment
guarantee of a unanimous verdict?

State v. Joseph B. Reinwand, 2019 WI 25, 3/19/19, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

The Confrontation Clause ordinarily bars the admission of testimonial statements of a witness if the witness does not appear at trial to testify and be cross-examined. But under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine, a witness’s testimonial statements may be admitted if the witness does appear to testify as a the result of wrongdoing by the defendant. The supreme court accepted the court of appeals’ certification of this case to address the scope of forfeiture doctrine, but as it happens the decision doesn’t address the doctrine because it determines the statements at issue are not testimonial and therefore do not implicate the Confrontation Clause.