On Point

Questions Presented:

California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors under 18 where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The respondent industry groups challenged this prohibition on its face as violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keri H.: Leonard D. Kachinski

IAC Claim – TPR
“The decision not to emphasize events preceding the current termination petitions was a reasonable strategic choice and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶11. Separately: counsel did not perform deficiently in his efforts to obtain Keri H.’s client file from predecessor counsel, and then securing an adjournment to prepare for trial,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Knapp: David M. Helmke; BiC; Resp.

Harmless Error – Prior Conviction
Inadmissible testimony suggestive of a prior conviction (Knapp’s statement upon arrest “that he was going to jail again”) was non-prejudicial: Knapp himself testified he had a prior conviction and nothing in the inadmissible testimony indicated the nature of the prior.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Pintar: Sarvan Singh; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable Cause – Traffic Violation
The police had probable cause to believe Pintar violated § 343.13(1), given uncontroverted testimony that his vehicle “moved across the center skip line (of I-94) into the lane of a car that was approaching from the rear, causing the car to activate its break lights and move out of the way.”

court of appeals certification; for Jacob T.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Grounds

We certify this case because we believe that State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, prevents us from interpreting Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) in a manner that is consistent both with the language of the statute and constitutional protections accorded parental rights. 

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Luckett: Cheryl A. Ward; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Extended Supervision Conditions
ES condition barring Luckett from residing”with any person in any place in which children or women reside [without] Court’s permission” neither unreasonable nor unconstitutionally overbroad.

The court of appeals stresses that Luckett’s history “demonstrates domestic violence”; indeed, the immediate crime is itself DV-related.

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Evans: George Tauscheck; BiC: Resp.; Reply

Testimony from 4 (of a total of 9) false imprisonment victims wasn’t necessary to sustain the convictions on those counts:

… (A) reasonable jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt from circumstantial evidence that Nathan B., Nicholas B., Nigel B. and Rashod H. did not consent to being restrained by Evans.

Wisconsin supreme court decision

Public reprimand for: “over-litigating” small claims case; taking position adverse to clients’ interest; pursuing frivolous argument; “making a baseless statement” about opposing counsel/party.

Seven-plus years ago, counsel assumed representation of two debtors trying to get out of a $491.36 bill for medical services. The dust from the ensuing litigation volcano settles today around an obligation that totals north of $20,000 — almost (but not all) from counsel’s pocket.

United States Supreme Court decision (or, here)

Criminalizing depictions of animal cruelty, 18 U.S.C. §48, held “substantially overbroad,” therefore violative of First Amendment.

First Amendment restrictions on speech are permitted “in a few limited areas” (obscenity, crime facilitation, et al.), and despite long-standing abhorrence of animal cruelty, depictions of same will not be added to that list.

… The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Able: Francesco G. Mineo; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reasonable Suspicion, Stop
Police had reasonable suspicion for temporary detention: after business hours, car pulled into parking lot of fitness club that had been subject of recent burglaries.

Conclusion unremarkable save perhaps court’s inexplicable emphasis that event occurred “close to bar closing time,” ¶12.