On Point

You know the NYC stop-and-frisk litigation where the Second Circuit sua sponte removed the district court judge.  The plaintiffs have moved for en banc reconsideration.  Read the story and the pleadings here.

Speaking of traffic stops, this one led to 3 enemas, a colonoscopy and a now lawsuit.  Ick.  Click here.

Public defender disbarred for sexually harassing clients.  And just what type of conduct qualifies as “sexual harassment”?  

Steve P. v. Maegan F., 2013 WI 89, dismissing review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; per curiam (Justice Prosser did not participate); case activity

This is every appellate lawyer’s nightmare–pouring your heart into an emotionally charged case presenting a provocative legal issue briefed by 5 different parties and amici and then having the supreme court declare that review was improvidently granted.

The record for this case is confidential so On Point’s explanation of what happened may be imprecise. 

Wood County Human Services v. James D., 2013AP1378, District 4, 11/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

One of the elements of protective placement is that the person has a disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent, § 55.08(1)(d). The County failed to prove this element by clear and convincing evidence because its psychological expert was unable to testify that James suffered from a permanent or likely to be permanent disability,

Sun Prairie v. Brent D. Curry, 2013AP1206, District 4, 11/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police had reasonable suspicion to stop Curry, who was driving on a residential street at 3:40 a.m., turned around, sped past the officer’s car, and then turned at a high rate of speed into the driveway of a residence. He then sat in the car for a few minutes before getting out and walking up the driveway;

Dodge County v. Giovanina Louise Ray, 2013AP1588, District 4, 11/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The general prohibition against inattentive driving in § 346.89(1) covers falling asleep behind the wheel. Ray argued the statutory language prohibiting a person from being “so engaged or occupied as to interfere with the safe driving” of the vehicle required engagement or occupation with something “external” and doesn’t apply to sleeping because,

State v. Jeffrey A. Adamczak, 2013 WI App 150; case activity

Admission of other acts evidence

Adamczak was charged with sexual exploitation by a therapist in violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.22 for having sexual contact with Sabrina. He testified the contact occurred, but only after the patient-therapist relationship was over. (¶¶3, 5). Before trial the state moved to admit the testimony of Sarah and Gail,

Burt v. Titlow, USSC No. 12-414, 11/5/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Titlow v. Burt, 680 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012)

When a state prisoner asks a federal court to set aside a sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, our cases require that the federal court use a “‘doubly deferential’” standard of review that gives both the state court and the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt.

State v. Richard P. Selenske, 2013AP1403-CR, District 3, 11/5/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A dispute about a contract for the purchase of standing hay grew into a misdemeanor theft charge when Selenske, the farmer who owned the hay fields, would not let Kern, the farmer who purchased the hay, pick up the last of the bales. The bare-bones contract Selenske wrote didn’t include a completion date,

The Sentencing Law and Policy blog (an affiliate of the law professor blogs network) tees up the issue nicely.  Their post is pasted in below.

When and how will SCOTUS take up Miller retroactivity issues?

The question in the title of this post is promoted by this local piece reporting on reactions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision last week (reported here) that its state teens given mandatory LWOP before the US Supreme Court’s Miller ruling should not get any retroactive benefit from that decision.

Legal history buffs and women’s history enthusiasts might enjoy Cornell Alumni Magazine’s new interview of SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  To read it, click here.