On Point

Docket

Decision below: Blueford v. State, 2011 Ark. 8

Question Presented (from cert. pet.):

Whether, if a jury deadlocks on a lesser-included offense, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars reprosecution of a greater offense after a jury announces that it has voted against guilt on the greater offense.

Cert. Petition

SCOTUSblog page

Blueford was tried for capital murder.

State v. Thomas C. Niesen, 2010AP1864-CR, District 2, 10/5/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Niesen: James A. Rebholz; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction § 940.01(1), court rejecting argument that State failed to prove that Niesen inflicted the fatal knife wound. (Niesen made certain damaging admissions; he met the description of the man last seen with the victim; his sperm was found in the ¶¶2-21.

State v. Timothy J. K., 2011AP1091, District 2, 10/5/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Timothy J.K.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The trial court’s requirement of sex offender registration, § 301.45(1m)(d)(1), is upheld against an argument that the court misconstrued an expert’s recommendation of no registration.

¶9        Timothy fails to clear the first hurdle of the Tiepelman standard.  

State v. Cindy R. Billips, 2009AP2493-CR, District 2, 10/5/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Billips: Timothy R. Muth, Amy Lynn MacArdy; case activity

Following OWI arrest supported by probable cause, the officer was authorized to search the vehicle for evidence relevant to the OWI arrest:

¶9        Here, it was reasonable for Kinservik to believe that further evidence related to Billips’ OWI arrest might be found in the vehicle.  

State v. Anastasia S., 2011AP1423 / State v. Lemar T., 2011AP1403, District 1, 10/4/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anastasia S.: Kevin M. Long, Brandon Gutschow; case activity; for Lemar T.: Jane S. Earle; case activity

¶18      “Grounds for termination [of parental rights] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”  Ann M.M. v. Rob S.,

State v. Rodney D. Johnson, 2010AP2470-CR, District 1, 10/4/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Johnson: Richard L. Kaiser; case activity

Acting on a drug tip, police targeted Johnson, and saw him driving a car with a cracked windshield. After Johnson got out of the car, the officers approached, and “asked” to talk to him, but he walked away. The officers then “asked” him to take his hands out of his pocket,

State v. Brian K. Avery, 2011 WI App 148 (recommended for publication), supreme court review granted, 2/23/12; for Avery: Keith A. Findley; case activity; prior 974.06 appeal: 2008AP500-CR; direct appeal: 1997AP317

Newly Discovered Evidence – New Forensic  Method – Photogrammetric Analysis 

Expert photogrammetric opinion, derived from video enhancement technology (“VISAR”) not commercially available until after Avery’s trial,

Margaret Colgate Love, “Evolving Standards of Reasonableness: The ABA Standards and the Right to Counsel in Plea Negotiations” (“Padilla v. Kentucky underscores the defense bar’s stake in participating in the ABA standard-setting process to guide the development of their obligations in plea negotiations.”).

“Will Robots Steal Your Job? Software could kill lawyers. Why that’s good for everyone else.” (“The trouble is that the path from here to there will be rocky—many firms will be shuttered,

J. K. v. Mark Peters, 2011 WI App 149 (recommended for publication); case activity

Appellate Procedure – “Waiver,” Distinguished from “Forfeiture” 

¶1 n. 1:

In using the term “waiver,” we are aware of the recently decided case of State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, where our supreme court clarified the distinction between the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver.”  See id.

Florence County Dept. of Human Services v. Jennifer B., 2011AP384, District 3/1, 9/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Because the record doesn’t clearly establish whether Jennifer B. voluntarily terminated her rights, entered a no-contest plea, or made an admission to the allegations in the petition, a new TPR hearing is required. The trial court didn’t sufficiently inquire into matters required of a voluntary consent to terminate,