Quantcast
Home / News (page 1126) /

News

99-0743 State v. Franklin

“We find nothing in Hansford to support the conclusion that the difference between a six-person jury trial and a twelve-person jury trial is so fundamental that a six-person jury trial, which was conducted without objection under the express authority of ...

Read More »

00-4064 U.S. v. Gochis

“In this case, there is no indication that Gochis has suffered any prejudice as a result of the magistrate judge’s failure to admonish him about his right to a trial before a district judge. His primary concern was to have ...

Read More »

00-1718 State v. Leitner

“The trial court properly denied the motion because it was not supported by a preponderance of evidence showing that Leitner actually had an alibi witness which he had previously chosen to conceal. At the hearing on his motion to withdraw ...

Read More »

99-2704 State v. Lindell

“Because our decision to affirm Lindell’s conviction is at odds with State v. Ramos, 211 Wis.2d 12, 564 N.W.2d 328 (1997), which would have required an automatic reversal in any situation where the defendant used a peremptory strike to remove ...

Read More »

00-3835 U.S. v. Hemmings

“While Hemmings seeks relief under 18 U.S.C. sec. 3162(a) (1), it is clear from the plain language of the statute that his claim must fail. Section 3162(a)(1) provides: ‘If, in the case of any individual against whom a complaint is ...

Read More »

99-3328 State v. Oakley

“The effects of the nonpayment of child support on our children are particularly troubling. In addition to engendering long-term consequences such as poor health, behavioral problems, delinquency and low educational attainment, inadequate child support is a direct contributor to childhood ...

Read More »

01-1159 Piaskowski v. Bett

“The State’s meager circumstantial evidence against Piaskowski is also innocuous. The fact that Piaskowski was present in coop 9 prior to the beating and entered coop 7 after the beating, 2 or 3 minutes after Kutska and Moore, proves little ...

Read More »

99-3040 State ex rel. Kaminski v. Schwarz

“We cannot agree that the legislature intended to prohibit notification of potentially vulnerable persons; nothing in the language of the statutes or in the legislative history supports such a conclusion. Such a conclusion would invalidate the notice in rule 16-3 ...

Read More »

00-2854 Tezak v. U.S.

“[C]onflicting testimony was presented about the filing of an appeal. The district court did not credit Casey’s deposition testimony, which the court stated indicated a bias against Popuch on Casey’s part due to the check forgery. Also, given Tezak’s vocal ...

Read More »

99-1069 Neff v. Pierzina

“[T]he determination whether an insurer has been prejudiced by the lack of timely notice is essentially a question of fact. The fact finder’s determination should not be set aside unless it is clearly erroneous. Wis. Stat. sec. 805.17(2). Wisconsin Stat. ...

Read More »

98-2595-CR State v. Eason

“In the 17 years since Leon became law, there is no evidence here, and none has been offered, that the good faith exception has given rise to increased police abuse or oppression… [W]e find that Article I, Section 11 of ...

Read More »

00-3090 U. S. v. Espinoza

“Given Espinoza’s resistive physical response to the officers’ attempt to gain forcible entry into his home (holding the door shut to prevent the officers from entering) we fail to see how the officers’ alleged failure to wait an objectively reasonable ...

Read More »

99-2296-CR State v. Henderson

“The rule against ‘rehabilitating’ a warrant after-the-fact by information known to the police but not included in the warrant application… applies only to challenges to the sufficiency of a search warrant under the warrant clause, not challenges to the manner ...

Read More »

99-1066 State v. Kelley

“[B]ecause the issue seems to be of statewide importance, we take the unusual step of remanding the matter to the circuit court where the parties can further develop the facts and legal analysis. Although case law seems to protect uplands ...

Read More »

00-2056-CR State v. Bielefeldt

Michael J. Bielefeldt appeals from a judgment of conviction of second-degree sexual assault, false imprisonment and battery. He also appeals from an order denying his postconviction motion. Bielefeldt argues that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea ...

Read More »

00-3111 U.S. v. Childs

“The defendant’s criminal record (even, as here, of very recent vintage) is an aspect of his status, which is unalterable, whether he is committing a crime at the time his vehicle is stopped or not. Whether he possessed drugs three ...

Read More »

00-2496-CR State v. Garth

Devaldis Garth appeals a judgment convicting him on one felony and two misdemeanor counts. The issue is whether the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress the evidence used to prosecute him. We affirm. This opinion will not be ...

Read More »

01-1003 U.S. v. Peterson

“The district court in this case structured its upward departure from the PSR’s suggested offense level of 11 to an offense level of 13 by increasing one offense level for Peterson’s first three criminal history points in excess of the ...

Read More »

00-2453-CR State v. Stannard

Scott Stannard appeals from a judgment convicting him of theft and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Stannard contends that the presentence report writer was biased against him, prejudicing the sentencing process. We affirm. This opinion will not ...

Read More »

00-4008 & 00-4166 U.S. v. Watts

“While the Sixth Circuit’s reading of Apprendi is now perhaps a tenable one (and might indeed be the wave of the future), it is not, at this point, our reading. It is true, as noted by the Sixth Circuit, that ...

Read More »

98-CR-0104 U.S. v. Acosta, et al.

“In the trial of this criminal case I used a verdict form in which special interrogatories on all elements of the crime preceded a question on guilt or innocence… My reasons for using this verdict form appear in the transcript, ...

Read More »

99-1058 Nankin v. Village of Shorewood

“We are unable to identify any difference in situation or circumstance between properties located in populous counties and properties located in other counties in the state that would necessitate different legislation for the classes in challenging their property assessment. Properties ...

Read More »