On Point

Warger v. Shauers, USSC No. 13-517, 2014 WL 6885952 (December 9, 2014), affirming Warger v. Shauers, 721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)

Resolving an issue that had split some federal circuit courts, the Supreme Court unanimously holds that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit or testimony about what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror was dishonest during voir dire.

State v. Steven L. Kaulfuerst, 2014AP1428-CR, District 2, 12/10/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The pat-down search of Kaulfuerst was lawful because police had probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct, even though police had not arrested him for that offense.

State v. David C. Marker, 2014AP1122-CR, District 2, 12/10/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The stop of the vehicle Marker was driving was justified under the community caretaker exception because, based on a call from Marker’s ex-wife, police had reason to believe Marker was driving while intoxicated with his children in the vehicle.

The New York Times obituary is here, and the Marshall Project has an article calling her “the Rosa Parks of the Fourth Amendment.”

Questions presented: I.   Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner’s penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner’s claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), has based its decision on an unreasonable determination of facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). II.   Whether a state court that […]

“No! Don’t ask me how I am. You already know the answer. I’m fine. I’m always Fine!” Back in 2007, Judge Fine told De novo, the Appellate Practice Section’s newsletter: “I love every minute being on the court.  It has been 19 years and yet it seems as if I joined the court just yesterday.  It […]

State v. Thornon F. Talley, 2015 WI App 4; case activity

A person committed as a sexually violent person under ch. 980 does not have a due process right to have the state prove at a discharge hearing that he is still a sexually violent person, so the clear and convincing evidence standard under § 980.09(3) is not facially unconstitutional.

State v. Andrew R. Geurts, 2014AP1520-CR, District 4, 12/4/14 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court had no authority to expunge the record of Geurts’s criminal case after it was dismissed after his successful completion of a deferred prosecution agreement because § 973.015 applies only to the record of an offense for which the person has been found guilty.

So asks the title of an excellent article published on The Atlantic’s website, which lays bare the flaws of the reasoning and result in Youngblood v. Arizona, 488 U.S. 51 (1988), by relating the details of the case and Youngblood’s ultimate, almost happenstance, exoneration. As noted here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reviewing whether the Wisconsin constitution’s due process guarantee requires greater protection […]

Judge Posner says the NSA should have unlimited access to your personal digital information.  Read this PCWorld article for more on his views. Being a lawyer is hard.  Being a public defender is even harder! Did you know that the challenging profession you’ve chosen will have a BIG pay off in your old age? Says […]