On Point

Review of unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

In deciding whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness, did the postconviction court err by deciding trial counsel’s failure to present the witness was not prejudicial because the witness was not credible?

Unlike electronically filed briefs in criminal cases, petitions for review are not available on the court’s website.

Review of unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Does harmless error analysis apply when a trial judge erroneously denies a defendant the right to testify in her own defense?

Nelson wanted to testify in her child sexual assault trial, and the court engaged in a colloquy with her about waiving her right to remain silent, see State v.

Review of 2 unpublished per curiam court of appeals decisions in 2 unrelated cases now joined for purposes of oral argument.

State v. Carlos A. Cummings, District 4 court of appeals decision, case activity

State v. Adrean L. Smith, District 1 court of appeals decision, case activity

Cummings and Smith both present the question of whether defendants invoked their 5th Amendment right to cut off police interrogations. 

State v. Daniel R. Folkman, 2013AP1363-CR, District 3, 12/17/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A deputy on patrol checked the license plate of an oncoming car. The check showed the car belonged to Folkman. The deputy then checked Folkman’s license status, which was expired, so the deputy stopped the car, ultimately resulting in Folkman’s arrest for OWI. (¶2). The court of appeals rejects Folkman’s claim the deputy needed some valid reason to initiate the registration and license checks.

Question Presented:

Whether the government must prove that the defendant intended to defraud a bank and expose it to risk of loss in every prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1344.

Lower court decision: United States v. Loughrin, 710 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2013)

Docket

Scotusblog page

Are you defending someone charged with federal bank fraud under 18 U.S.C.

Kansas v. Cheever, USSC No. 12-609, 12/11/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Kansas v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).

The Supreme Court unanimously holds that “where a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination for the limited purpose of rebutting the defendant’s evidence.”

The Third Circuit plans to rehear en banc a case limiting the scope of the Davis good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.  Read Orin Kerr’s analysis of the problem on The Volokh Conspiracy.

Is there a national epidemic of Brady violations?  Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski thinks so, and he wants to see prosecutors penalized for them.  Read about it here.

How do you use a brain scan to defeat the death penalty (or,

State v. Tina M. Jacobsen, 2014 WI App 13; case activity

Jacobsen was charged with 8 offenses for stealing $500,000 from her employer, and she was convicted on 3 counts.  The charges were based on 289 individual thefts occurring over 3 years.  On appeal she claimed her trial lawyer was ineffective for failing advise her that, and for failing to seek dismissal because, the charges were duplicitous or multiplicitous.  

State v. Julian L. Perez, 2013AP750-CR, District 1, 12/10/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Where the evidence at trial showed that the defendant possessed a firearm over a short span of time at two locations in the same apartment building, the jury did not need to be unanimous as to which location the possession occurred. Instead, unanimity was required only as to whether the defendant had possessed a firearm in the building in question on the date charged.

State v. Jeffery Polar, Jr., 2014 WI App 15; case activity

The court of appeals holds that the plain language of § 973.195(1r)(a) requires a defendant serving multiple sentences to file a separate sentence adjustment petition for each individual sentence the defendant is seeking to adjust.

Polar’s governing sentences consisted of two consecutive terms, one with 7 years of confinement, the second for 3 years of confinement.