On Point

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 denies funding to an indigent petitioner who has no other means of obtaining evidence of his mental retardation has denied petitioner his “opportunity to be heard,”

“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 really does.  I enjoy few things more than writing an opinion.  I actually get a physical high out of doing 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 than that afforded under Youngblood.

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 so here.

Appellate courts want their processes to appear blind and balanced.  

Practitioners take note. This opinion holds the seeds of controversy.  SCOW’s ruling–that forcing a defendant to bare his teeth to the jury does not violate the 5th Amendment–is not so surprising.  But Chief Justice Abrahamson’s concurrence, which announces the elimination of “opinion conferences” and new restrictions on the preparation of concurring and dissenting opinions seems alarming.

Marathon County v. Zachary W., 2014AP955, District 3, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Even if the circuit court erred it provided multiple definitions of the term “drug” when instructing the jury hearing a ch. 51 commitment case.

State v. Faizel K., 2014AP2035 & 2014AP2036, District 1, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2014AP2035; 2014AP2036

In this fact-intensive decision, the court of appeals holds there was sufficient evidence to support the orders terminating Faizel’s parental rights to his sons Mohammed K. and Robeul K.