On Point

State v. August D. Genz, 2016AP2475-CR, District 3, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Genz of (1) possession with intent to deliver amphetamine and (2) conspiracy to deliver THC. The court imposed concurrent, stayed sentences with 1 year of probation. Genz appealed the 2nd conviction, but he completed his term of probation while the appeal was pending. The State moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness. The court of appeals said, essentially, no way. The appeal was not moot because a felony conviction has collateral consequences. Furthermore, the State did not offer sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy to deliver THC.  Conviction reversed!

State v. Morris Rash, 2016AP2494-CR, District 1, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Morris Rash was convicted of substantial battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm after a jury trial. When it came time for postconviction proceedings and/or an appeal, it turned out that some photographs used as exhibits at the trial were not in the court record.

Who would’ve thunk? This is the subject of a hot new paper on the Social Science Research Network.  You can read it here.

This new paper examines data from over 1 million criminal cases in an attempt to answer that question.

Who wants to preserve a really provocative issue at their next trial? The Unconstitutionality of Criminal Jury Selection, by Brittany Dietch, a Harvard Law fellow, argues that because the Sixth Amendment grants this right personally to the defendant and the Supreme Court has construed this right as intending to protect the defendant from governmental overreach, the prosecution should not be entitled to select the very jury that is supposed to serve as a check against its power.

There seems to be a debate over this issue. If you practice juvenile law, you might was to weigh in here at the Cyntonia Brown and the “51 to life” project. Attorney Robert Donohoo already has.

State v. Anton R. Dorsey, 2018 WI 10, 1/25/28, affirming a per curiam court of appeals opinion, case activity (including briefs)

On Point has posted extensively about this case here regarding the court of appeals’ two opinions and here regarding Dorsey’s petition for review. This post focuses on the bottom line for trial lawyers because the majority opinion cements a change in Wisconsin law. Under common law, the “greater latitude rule” allows for the more liberal admission of “other acts” evidence in cases of sexual abuse particularly those involving children. Opinion ¶32. In 2013, the legislature amended §904.04(2)(b)1, and according to the majority, thereby extended this rule to a range of cases beyond child sexual abuse, including domestic abuse.  Specifically :

State v. Daniel E. Olsen, 2017AP918-CR, District 4, 1/25/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)

At the request of DOC, the circuit court extended Olsen’s probation by one year and increased his monthly restitution payment. His challenges to the court’s orders fail. 

Judge Lynn Adelman, Eastern District of Wisconsin,  wrote an article by that name.  SSRN recently posted it online. An excerpt from the abstract is pasted in below. Don’t hold back. The article is short, and you won’t regret reading the whole thing . . . unless perhaps you’re Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, or a state appellate judge. 🙂

Outagamie County v. C.A., 2017AP450, District 3, 1/23/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The records for Chapter 51 cases are confidential, so we have not seen the briefs for this case. But, judging from this court of appeals opinion, it doesn’t take much beyond a mental illness diagnosis to get yourself committed under §51.20(1)(a)2e, Wisconsin’s 5th standard of dangerousness. A little unsubstantiated hearsay about your frustration with the justice system just might do the trick.