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.
Kevin Loughrin v. United States, USSC 13-316, cert granted 12/13/13
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)
Are you defending someone charged with federal bank fraud under 18 U.S.C.
When a defendant asserts a “mental status” defense, Fifth Amendment allows state to use court-ordered psych exams in rebuttal
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.”
An epidemic of Brady violations AND the best holiday gifts for lawyers!
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,
Aggregating 289 thefts as 1 continuous offense then dividing by 8 = no multiplicity violation
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.
Jury need not be unanimous about exact location in building where felon possessed firearm
State v. Julian L. Perez, 2013AP750-CR, District 1, 12/10/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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.
Defendant must file a separate § 973.195 sentence adjustment petition for each sentence to be adjusted
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.
State v. William Bokenyi, 2012AP2557-CR, petition for review granted
Review of an unpublished, per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity; State’s petition for review
Issues (from the State’s petition):
State v. O’Brien, 2012AP1769, petition for review granted 12/5/13
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Wis. Stat. § 970.038 (2011-12) makes hearsay evidence admissible at a criminal defendant’s preliminary examination and permits the probable cause determination and bindover decision at a preliminary examination to be based “in whole or in part” on hearsay evidence. Do these provisions violate a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to confront adversary witnesses,
Underfunded public defender system violates Sixth Amendment right to counsel
How many misdemeanor cases is too many for one public defender to take in one year? Is it okay to advise a client to take a fantastic plea bargain without having a confidential conversation with him first? What about skipping the investigation of a client’s story? In Wilbur v. City of Mount Vernon, Case No. C11-1100RSL (12/4/13) the Western District of Washington slammed the “meet and plead” public defense systems in place in the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington.
Friday links: pretty serious stuff
Cuts in public defender programs cause Sixth Amendment violations, says federal judge. Sort of “no duh,” but it’s a big story. Read more here.
Forty two states get an “F” in judicial ethics, according to a new report by The Center for Public Integrity. Guess which side of the line Wisconsin fall on? You guessed right, but we’re by no means the lowest “F” in the class. Click here.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.