On Point

State v. Robert T. Warriner, 2012AP244-CR, District 2/1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Instruction on first degree child sexual assault as lesser-included of repeated child sexual assault

At trial the child testified that Warriner sexually assaulted her on only two occasions, so the trial court agreed, over Warriner’s objections, to read the instruction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, § 948.02(1).

State v. Haven Pettigrew, 2012AP1860-CR, District 2/1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Reference to right against self-incrimination

Defense counsel revealed her theory of defense for the first time in her opening statement. During direct examination of the lead detective if that was the first time he had heard that theory. Defense counsel objected before the question was even finished, and the court sustained the objection,

Question presented:

What, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259?

Lower court opinion: In re: Amy Unknown: United States v. Paroline, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012)

Docket

Scotusblog page

This is an important case for anyone handling federal possession of child pornography cases,

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief on the trial court’s failure to provide a no adverse inference instruction even though this Court has not “clearly established” that such an instruction is required in a capital penalty phase when a non-testifying defendant has pled guilty to the crimes and aggravating circumstances.

2. Whether the Sixth Circuit violated the harmless error standard in Brecht v.

Questions presented:

1.     Massachusetts has a law that makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic employees or agents acting within the scope of employment to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of  “a reproductive health care facility.” Did the First Circuit err in upholding this law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners?

State v. Constance Ilene Osborne, 2012AP2540-CR, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The results of a blood draw done by an EMT at the jail after Osborne was arrested for OWI were admissible because the method and manner of the blood draw were reasonable and the EMT was acting under the direction of a physician, as required by § 343.305(5)(b).

State v. Brian Kiale Little, 2012AP2162, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A year after Little pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon he filed a motion for return of the gun and ammunition involved in the offense. The circuit court denied the motion because § 968.20(1m)(b) prohibits return of a dangerous weapon to a person who committed a crime involving the use of the weapon.

State v. Joseph Jordan, 2011AP1249, District 1, 6/25/13; case activity; (not recommended for publication).

What a challenging case.  A jury convicted Jordan of first-degree reckless homicide and other crimes.  He lost his direct appeal and then filed a pro se §974.06 motion requesting various forms of relief, including a new trial based on: (a) newly-discovered evidence, and (b) ineffective assistance of counsel. He also filed several requests for counsel,

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Birl, USSC No. 12-399, reversing and remanding 298 S.C. 625, 731 S.E.2d 550 (2012).

SCOTUSblog coverage here.

TPR lawyers, this one is for you.

The dissent says the casual reader of the majority opinion could be forgiven for thinking that Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 points to only one sensible result.  See what you think.

Unwed mom became pregnant with the child of dad,

Giridhar C. Sekhar v. United States, USSC No. 12-357, 6/26/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing U.S. v. Sekhar, 683 F.3d 436 (2nd Cir. 2012)

Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute “the obtaining of property from another” for purposes of a prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. §1951(a).

Investments for the New York government employees pension fund are chosen by the State Comptroller.