Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Contact with suspected drunk driver wasn’t a seizure; and if it was, it was lawful
State v. Mary G. Zinda, 2016AP455-CR, District 2, 9/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Two police officers approached Zinda as she got out of her car on her own driveway, but this did not amount to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. And even if it was a seizure, it was supported by reasonable suspicion to investigate whether Zinda was operating while intoxicated.
Extension of traffic stop was reasonable
State v. John J. Valenti, 2016AP662, District 2, 9/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After stopping and ticketing Valenti for speeding, a state trooper continued to detain him to investigate whether he was operating while intoxicated. The court of appeals rejects Valenti’s claim that the trooper lacked specific, articulable facts justifying expanding the investigatory purpose of the stop because the only fact on which the trooper acted was a general odor of intoxicants, which could have emanated from the passenger. (¶¶2-4, 6, 9).
The public defense crisis
The Marhsall Project is running a multi-part series on the public defense crisis in the United States with special emphasis on Louisiana. It promises to report on some “unorthodox forms of representation” that “have now become unexceptional for poor people accused of crimes.” Click here to read the first story in this series.
Can juvenile adjudications be used to enhance criminal sentences without proving the conduct to a jury?
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently answered that question “no.” State v. Hand, 2016 Ohio 5504, 2016 WL 4486068, 8/25/16. Hand rejects the majority position on this question, and instead adopts the position of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Tighe, 266 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001), holding that the lack of a jury trial in juvenile proceedings under Ohio law means a juvenile adjudication isn’t a “prior conviction” that, under Appendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), can be used to enhance a sentence without having the jury determine the existence of the prior conviction.
Issues re: translation of confession by detective didn’t render confession involuntary
Francisco Carrion v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3241, 2016 WL 4537374, 8/31/16
Carrion’s habeas petition made the novel claim that his confession was involuntary because of the fact it was translated by the investigating detective. You won’t be surprised to learn that the federal courts rejected his claim.
Appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to challenge habitual offender status
Charles Walker v. Kathy Griffin, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-2147, 2016 WL 4501988, 8/29/16
Walker’s lawyer on his direct state appeal decided to challenge the reasonableness of Walker’s sentence, but he didn’t raise an issue about the sufficiency of the evidence to support applying an habitual offender enhancer to Walker. That failure didn’t constitute ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Where women public defenders dominate
Today’s edition of SCOWstats compares the 2015-16 term with the 1990-91 term and highlights an interesting datapoint. Women public defenders present a larger share of SCOW arguments than all other women lawyers. Their colleagues at the Department of Justice come in a close second. But despite the dramatic rise in the number of women attending […]
The impact of fines and fees on our juvenile justice system
The Juvenile Law Center just published a major report called Debtor’s Prison for Kids. It includes a searchable database showing costs, fines, fees and restitution for all 50 states, and it explains how the imposition of them leads to recidivism and racial disparity in our juvenile justice system. Read the New York Times article here […]
A longer prolonged stop/dog sniff, but a different result
State v. Troy Paulson, 2015AP456-CR, 8/31/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion, not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) This is the second dog sniff case from District 2 in less than a week. See our post on State v. Downer Jossi here, which recognized that SCOTUS’s Rodriguez v. United States overruled SCOW’s State v. Arias. Paulson, however, did […]
“Twilight zone” between great bodily harm and bodily harm is for jury
State v. Anthony Darnell Davis, 2016 WI App 73; case activity (including briefs)
Davis argued that he could not be convicted of recklessly causing “great bodily harm” to a child where the injuries he inflicted were bone fractures which, by statute, qualify as only “substantial bodily harm.” See Wis. Stat. § 939.22(38). The court of appeals disagreed.
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.