On Point

State v. D.L.L., 2018AP1064-FT, District 2, 11/21/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.L.L., who was under a delinquency dispositional order placing him at his mother’s home, ran away for six days. The state moved for sanctions, alleging six violations of the dispositional order, one for each day he was gone. The juvenile court agreed that each day could be a separate violation. The juvenile court was wrong.

State v. Kathryn M. Cooper, 2018AP1154, 11/21/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Cooper’s vehicle was involved in an accident and was found, damaged, in her driveway. An officer saw a light on near the back door of her home and went around back and knocked. Cooper waved him in. The officer told her he was investigating an accident.

Under the aegis of the Northeastern University School of Law Health in Justice Action Lab, a group of legal, public policy, and public health academics has put together a “Drug-Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit” and posted it on the Social Science Research Network. Though it is not specific to Wisconsin, has a lot of generally relevant […]

Michael O’Hear from the Marquette University Law School has published Wisconsin Sentencing in the Walker Era: Mass Incarceration as the New Normal, 30 Federal Sentencing Report 125 (2017), which surveys the last eight years of sentencing policy in Wisconsin that readers may find interesting, even if they disagree with his conclusions.

State v. Lorenzo D. Kyles, 2018AP296-Cr, District 1, 11/20/18, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This appears to be Wisconsin’s second application of Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), which modified the prejudice prong of  Strickland‘s ineffective assistance of counsel test for situations where defense counsel failed to convey a plea offer and thereby caused the defendant to accept  subsequent, potentially less favorable offer. 

State v. Brian M. Smits, 2017AP2141-Cr, District 2, 11/20/18, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged Smits with obstruction, OWI 2nd, and operating with a PAC 2nd. The case was tried to a jury, After both sides rested, the State filed an amended complaint containing a 2nd obstruction charge. The court of appeals affirmed because Smits wasn’t prejudiced by the amendment.

State v. Johnny K. Pinder, 2018 WI 106, 11/16/18, on certification from the court of appeals; 2017AP208; case activity (including briefs)

The police thought Pinder was probably the culprit in a string of burglaries, so they applied for, and got, a warrant to attach a GPS device to his car. They did not actually do the attaching, though, until 10 days after they got the warrant. This seems to run afoul of Wis. Stat. § 968.15, which together with surrounding provisions defines, authorizes and regulates the issuance of search warrants. Specifically, it says a warrant not executed within five days of issuance is “void.”

State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell, 2017AP1202-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 11/13/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1.   Is this Court’s holding in Avila–that it is “not reasonably likely” that the standard JI-140 reduces the State’s burden of proof–good law; or should it be overruled by the Court on the grounds that it is rebutted by empirical evidence?

Richard Posner wrote a whole book aimed at measuring Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s judicial influence. See Cardozo: A Study in Reputation. The book blurb asks: “What makes a great judge? How are reputations forged? Why do some reputations endure, while others crumble? And how can we know whether a reputation is fairly deserved?” Because this is Justice […]

State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2017AP1720-CR, 11/13/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/9/19, affirmed, 2019 WI 106, ; case activity (including briefs)

Here’s good one for SCOW. A jury convicted Pope of 2 counts of 1st degree homicide in 1996. His lawyer forgot to file a notice of intent. Twenty years later, the State stipulated to reinstatement of Pope’s direct appeal. He tried to order transcripts but couldn’t because the court reporters had destroyed their notes. The circuit court ordered a new trial, but the court of appeals reversed because his new lawyer could not predict what “colorable claims” lurked in transcripts that weren’t prepared and could never be reconstructed.