On Point

State v. Richard Rey Myers, 2017AP2499, District 4, 8/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Myers argues, unsuccessfully, that his refusal to submit to a blood test for OWI can’t be found to be improper because it was based on misinformation from the officer about his right to counsel.

Looking for a creative objection? Consider this excerpt from the abstract on Michael Cicchini’s new article,  Spin Doctors: Prosecutor Sophistry and the Burden of Proof, forthcoming in the University of Cincinnati Law Review. In two recently published studies, mock jurors who received truth-based instructions convicted at significantly higher rates than those who were simply instructed on […]

SCOWstats just published its “readers picks” of the most unusual Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions of the 2017-2018 term. Citing one’s own concurrence as persuasive authority, co-authoring dissents, peculiar alignments of justices. You’ll find all this and more in today’s edition of SCOWstats.

If you liked the documentary, you may love the action figure available soon online thanks to a kickstarter campaign.  The action figure includes “wire-rimmed glasses to see through the patriarchal bullsh*t” and a “righteous robe, the next best thing to a cape.” Shouldn’t it come with a set of changeable collars too?

State v. Shayd C. Mitchell, 2017AP1536-CR, District 3, 8/7/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Mitchell was stopped two blocks away from the Family Video store he was walking to for an assignation with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. That was close enough to get him convicted of attempted child enticement.

State v. R.D.J., 2017AP547, 8/7/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.D.J. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his daughter, T.S.J. He argues that his lawyer was ineffective for not challenging the state’s expert’s report on Daubert and undue prejudice grounds, that his due process rights were violated because T.S.J.’s removal from the home made it impossible for him to show a substantial parental relationship, and that the CHIPS order itself established that such a relationship existed.

State v. Melvin Lidall Terry, 2017AP1625, 8/7/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police arrested Terry, his girlfriend Carter, and his brother X.C. soon after, and in the vicinity of, a fatal shooting. The police seated the three on the curb and directed one man who had witnessed the shooting to “look over and identify who it was”; he identified Terry.

Marathon County v. D.K., 2017AP2217, 8/7/18, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 7/10/19, affirmed, 2020 WI 18; case activity

“Donald” is the pseudonym the court of appeals opinion assigned to D.K., who was committed under §51.20(a)2.b. Although Dr. Dave, the examining physician, waffled on the odds of whether Donald might do serious physical harm without commitment and treatment, the court of appeals found that his conclusion–that Donald posed a “substantial risk of danger to others”–got the job done.  It also acknowledged a potential antidote to mootness arguments in Chapter 51 appeals.

State v. Terrell Antwain Kelly, 2017AP1584, 7/31/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Kelly was charged with both a long-ago second-degree sexual assault of a child and several domestic violence counts (the victim was the same). The state offered him a choice between two plea deals: one in which he would plead to the sexual assault with the DV counts dismissed and read in, and one in which he would plead to the DV counts with the sexual assault dismissed and read in.

State v. Christopher A. Mason, 2018 WI App 57; case activity (including briefs)

Applying its newly minted decision in State v. Stewart, 2018 WI App 41, the court of appeals holds that the “representing” element of identity theft under § 943.201 can be proven with the same evidence that proves the defendant “used” the identifying information or documents.