On Point

State v. T.S.R., 2017AP548, 3/20/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.S.R. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter. She argues that the two statutory grounds on which she was found unfit–continuing CHIPS and failure to assume parental responsibility–violate due process as applied to her.

An investigation by The New York Times has found that on more than 25 occasions since January 2015, judges or prosecutors determined that a key aspect of a New York City police officer’s testimony was probably untrue. The Times identified these cases — many of which are sealed — through interviews with lawyers, police officers and current and former judges.

In these cases, officers have lied about the whereabouts of guns, putting them in suspects’ hands or waistbands when they were actually hidden out of sight.

Excerpt from Empirical SCOTUS:

One of the exciting new tools to measure legal writing quality is BriefCatch.  Designed by Ross Guberman, BriefCatch allows users to measure writing quality along five dimensions and get thousands of potential editing of suggestions. Guberman says that he created the scoring dimensions based on quantifiable features in the writing of such luminaries as Justices Roberts, Kagan, and Scalia. Making some of the edits that BriefCatch suggests generally makes the scores increase.

We are still waiting for SCOTUS to answer this question.  In the meantime, you might read this update on the Confrontation Blog. If you have this issue in the trial or appellate courts, you might find want to review this white paper tracking the different approaches used by courts around the country. Who knows? Your case could be the one SCOTUS takes.

Some states have “mental health courts” for mentally ill defendants who are accused on crimes. They sound a lot like veterans courts or drug treatment courts, so your initial reaction might be “great idea.” However, this new empirical study by E. Lea Johnston and Connor Flynn at the University of Florida will make you think twice. Consider this excerpt from the article’s abstract:

This article by Elizabeth Scott, Natashal Duell and Laurence Steinberg  is one of the top downloads about criminal law on the SSRN this week. It looks at how a juvenile’s brain development and social environment affects his or her decision to engage in risky behavior and criminal activity. It responds to critics who note that all juveniles experience brain development but most don’t commit crimes. And it offers evidence to support more lenient sanctions for juveniles.

The CrimProfBlog recently reported on 4 new papers about the use of neuroscience evidence in criminal proceedings. When do courts find neuroscience most relevant? They use it in competency proceedings, of course, but also as mitigation evidence at sentencing. Click here for more information.

State v. Faith N. Reed, 2016AP1609-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 3/13/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point):

1. Whether an apartment dweller consented to police entry of his apartment by leading an officer to the door and going in.

2. If such consent was given, whether it was revoked by trying to close the door on the officer.

3. Whether any such consent was free and voluntary where the officer directed the resident to take him to the apartment to speak to someone.

State v. Gary Lee Wayerski, 2015AP1083-CR, petition for review of unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/13/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point):

Whether trial counsel was ineffective where he did not ask the testifying defendant about the purported confession he gave to a jailhouse snitch, and defendant would have denied the conversation occurred.

Whether the state violated Brady when it did not inform defense that the snitch had pending child-sex charges during the trial.

City of Chetek v. Daniel John McKee, 2017AP207, District 3, 3/15/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

McKee claimed he was justified in refusing to submit to a breath test under § 343.305(9)(a)5.c. because his chronic gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) and resulting Barrett’s esophagus rendered him physically unable to take the test. (¶¶3-4). McKee sought to admit his medical records as evidence at the refusal hearing, but the circuit court sustained the prosecutor’s objection that they weren’t properly authenticated. (¶5). Further, based on the testimony of the arresting officer, the circuit court found McKee refused out of a concern for his job, not because of his medical condition. (¶¶6-7). The court of appeals rejects McKee’s challenges to the circuit court’s rulings.