To study bail jumping in Wisconsin, WJI and the Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas law firm will look county by county at 2021 bail-jumping charges. Which counties are charging bail jumping the most? Who are some of the defendants? What happens to those cases? We'll report the statistics from individual counties and tell you the stories from randomly chosen cases. Ashland County
Total number of cases with bail-jumping charges: 148 Total number of misdemeanor and felony cases: 439 Percent of misdemeanor and felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 34% Total number of felony cases with bail-jumping charges: 110* Total number of all felony cases: 262 Percent of felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 42% Total number of misdemeanor cases with bail-jumping charges: 38 Total number of all misdemeanor cases: 177 Percent of misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges: 21% Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 10 Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 198 Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 149 *Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case file Joe's legal troubles began in November 2020, when he allegedly kicked and dented his girlfriend's car, then went to their apartment where he broke a door and damaged a shower and kitchen wall, according to a criminal complaint. Joe was charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct/domestic abuse and misdemeanor criminal damage to property. Circuit Judge Kelly J. McKnight set a $2,000 signature bond and $200 cash bond. He also ordered Joe to have no contact with his girlfriend, BJ, and to stay away from the apartment where they both had been living. McKnight later, with BJ's consent, limited the no-contact order to a no-abusive-contact order. In February 2021, Joe pleaded no contest to both counts and entered a deferred prosecution agreement, according to online court records. He also agreed to pay $3,100 in restitution. He was represented by the State Public Defender's Office in his cases, indicating poverty. In August, Joe faced new domestic-abuse related charges. He was hit on Aug. 12 with four counts related to a May 15 incident involving BJ. He also was charged the same day with three domestic abuse counts for an Aug. 5 incident, again involving BJ. In the May case, which BJ told police about on the day it happened, Joe allegedly smashed her phone, pulled her hair, and head-butted her, according to the complaint. He also called her derogatory names and said she was "fat" and "psychotic," BJ told police. BJ told officers that Joe "was a meth user and he had not used for a couple of days." He got upset, she said, when she tossed him her phone and it went over his shoulder. Joe was charged with misdemeanor battery/domestic abuse, disorderly conduct/domestic abuse, criminal damage to property, and bail jumping. Regarding the August instance, according to the complaint, BJ told police she went out with her girlfriends the night before, leaving her children in Joe's care. When she returned, Joe was upset, grabbed her hair, and punched her twice. She left with the children and learned later in the day that Joe had skipped work and was still at the residence. BJ said Joe also had pulled her hair shortly before police arrived and that he had damaged the bathroom door. BJ "stated that she believed (Joe) may seriously injure or kill her," the complaint said. She also said that Joe "consumed meth a day ago, and that he usually gets crabby if he does not have it for a day." Joe was charged with more misdemeanors – battery/domestic abuse, disorderly conduct/domestic abuse, criminal damage to property, and misdemeanor bail jumping. This time, McKnight set a $750 cash bond and a $2,000 signature bond to cover both cases. McKnight ordered Joe to stay away from the woman and the apartment, and he extended Joe's deferred prosecution agreement, according to online records. Joe posted bond and was released but was back in court in October, this time facing a felony charge – at least at first. Police responded Oct. 3 to a man with a gun at BJ's residence, according to the criminal complaint. When police arrived, Joe ran out the back door right at them. He complied with orders to get on the ground. He told police that he had stopped by to give BJ some cash and see his daughter "but when he got there he found that his daughter was not there. (Joe) stated that he (then) grabbed a gun in the apartment." BJ said she thought Joe might have wanted to kill her, but Joe said "he wasn't hurting anyone but was thinking about killing himself," according to the complaint. BJ "yelled at (Joe), asking him if he was going to kill himself with an eight-year-old there," the complaint said. Police saw that one of the locks on a case where BJ kept guns had been opened. Joe was charged with felony burglary while armed with a dangerous weapon, misdemeanor criminal trespass, and misdemeanor bail jumping. McKnight ordered a $750 cash bond and a $2,000 signature bond, according to court records. He again ordered Joe not to have contact with BJ and to stay away from her residence, though that again was modified later to a no-abusive-contact order. The judge also ordered Joe to maintain absolute sobriety and prohibited him from possessing weapons, according to court records. At the preliminary hearing, McKnight found that there was not enough probable cause to merit the felony charge and it was amended to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. In November, McKnight issued a bench warrant for Joe and ordered his bail amounts forfeited, but he vacated the order after Joe was charged in two new domestic violence and bail-jumping cases in January 2022. McKnight has vacated the deferred prosecution agreement in the 2020 case and sentencing is set for June 7. Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases.
0 Comments
Note: We are crunching Supreme Court of Wisconsin decisions down to size. The rule for this is that no justice gets more than 10 paragraphs as written in the actual decision. The "upshot" and "background" sections do not count as part of the 10 paragraphs because of their summary and very necessary nature. We've also removed citations from the opinion for ease of reading, but have linked to important cases cited or information about them. Italics indicate WJI insertions except for case names, which also are italicized. The case: State of Wisconsin v. Daniel J. Van Linn Majority opinion: Justice Rebecca F. Dallet (14 pages), joined by Chief Justice Annette K. Ziegler and Justices Patience Roggensack, Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Brian Hagedorn, and Jill J. Karofsky Dissent: Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (11 pages) ![]() The upshot After crashing his car, Daniel Van Linn was taken to the hospital, where two blood tests were performed: the first one by the hospital for diagnostic and treatment purposes; a later one at the direction of a sheriff's deputy for investigative purposes. Both blood tests revealed that Van Linn's blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) was over the legal limit. The circuit court suppressed the results of the deputy's blood test, concluding that the deputy's blood draw violated the Fourth Amendment because the deputy did not have a warrant. The State then subpoenaed the hospital for Van Linn's medical records, which included the hospital's diagnostic blood-test results. Van Linn argues that those results should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule because the State subpoenaed the hospital only after it learned from the deputy's unlawful blood draw that Van Linn's BAC was over the legal limit. The issue is whether hospital's blood-test results are nevertheless admissible under the independent-source doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule. We hold that they are, and therefore affirm the court of appeals. Background Around 2:00 a.m. one Sunday morning, the Oconto County Sheriff's Office responded to a call about a car accident on a rural road in the Town of Mountain. When a deputy arrived, he found Van Linn's car crashed into the back of a cabin. The subsequent investigation revealed that Van Linn was driving to his cabin when he thought he saw an oncoming car in his lane and swerved to avoid it. He veered off the road and into a ditch, where he hit a tree. He then drove back onto the road, crossing both lanes of traffic before continuing into a ditch on the other side of the road, over a hill, and through a field, eventually crashing into the back of someone's cabin. Ambulance personnel found Van Linn lying on the ground across the street. He had a bump and some blood on his forehead and his hands were bleeding. Van Linn claimed to know nothing about the accident and denied that he was driving. The deputy noted a "moderate odor of alcohol" coming from Van Linn, and Van Linn told the deputy that he had drank "two beers" earlier that evening. The deputy learned that because Van Linn had four prior OWI (operating while intoxicated) convictions, he was subject to a BAC limit of 0.02 and his driving privileges were revoked. Van Linn was taken to the hospital. At 3:55 a.m., hospital personnel performed a "diagnostic workup," which included drawing Van Linn's blood. The results of that blood test revealed that Van Linn's BAC was 0.226. Not long after, the deputy arrived at the hospital and, based on his investigation at the accident scene, arrested Van Linn for his fifth OWI. At the time of Van Linn's arrest, the deputy was unaware of the hospital's blood draw and its results. Following his arrest, Van Linn admitted that he had in fact been driving and that he was the one who called the police to report the crash. The deputy asked Van Linn to consent to a blood draw, which Van Linn refused. Nevertheless, at his lieutenant's direction and without a warrant, the deputy had Van Linn's blood drawn at approximately 4:15 a.m., about twenty minutes after the hospital had taken Van Linn's blood. A test of this second sample showed that Van Linn's BAC was 0.205. In the circuit court, Van Linn moved to suppress the results of the deputy's blood draw because the deputy did not have a warrant and no exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. The State argued that the deputy did not need a warrant because the natural dissipation of alcohol in Van Linn's bloodstream was an exigent circumstance. The circuit court granted Van Linn's motion, suppressing the results of the deputy's warrantless blood draw on the grounds that no exigent circumstances justified the deputy's failure to get a warrant. Three months later, the State asked the circuit court to issue a subpoena to the hospital for Van Linn's medical records, which included the results of the hospital's diagnostic blood test. The State submitted an accompanying affidavit asserting there was probable cause for the subpoena because the deputy smelled alcohol on Van Linn at the scene, Van Linn had a reduced BAC restriction, and Van Linn admitted he had been drinking before the accident. The affidavit referenced the deputy's blood draw and noted that testing of the sample showed that Van Linn's BAC was over the legal limit. The subpoena issued notwithstanding Van Linn’s objection, and the hospital produced its records from testing Van Linn's blood. Van Linn moved to suppress the hospital's blood-test results, but the circuit court denied the motion. Van Linn then appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that the hospital's blood test was an independent source of evidence of Van Linn's BAC. The guts The Fourth Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." When the State obtains evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment, that evidence typically must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule can apply to both evidence discovered during an unlawful search or seizure and evidence discovered only because of what the police learned from the unlawful activity, also referred to as "fruit of the poisonous tree." Not all Fourth Amendment violations, however, justify applying the exclusionary rule. Rather, the rule applies when excluding the unlawfully obtained evidence will "meaningfully deter" police misconduct such that interfering with the criminal justice system's truth-seeking objective is justified. Whenever the exclusionary rule applies, the scope of the remedy is limited to preventing the State from "profit[ing] from its illegal activity" without placing the State "in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied" absent its illegal conduct. It follows that excluding illegally obtained evidence "does not mean that the facts thus obtained become sacred and inaccessible," provided the State's knowledge of them is gained from a source unrelated to the State's illegal conduct. That idea is the foundation of the independent-source doctrine. The doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule in that it allows for the admissibility of evidence or information tainted by an illegal evidence-gathering activity when the State otherwise acquires the same information—or "rediscover[s]" it—by lawful means "in a fashion untainted" by that illegal activity. Subsequent lawful means, such as a subpoena, are "untainted" when the State can show that the illegal conduct neither "affected" the circuit court's decision to approve its subpoena request nor "prompted" the State's decision to seek a subpoena in the first place. The former question turns on "whether the [subpoena's supporting affidavit] contain[s] sufficient evidence of probable cause without the references to the tainted evidence." Van Linn concedes that although the supporting affidavit referenced his BAC as discovered by the deputy's unlawful blood draw, the affidavit establishes probable cause for the subpoena without that reference. Our analysis therefore focuses on the latter question of whether the State's decision to seek the subpoena was prompted by what it learned from the deputy's unlawful blood draw. Van Linn argues that the State's decision to subpoena his medical records was "motivated specifically" by the knowledge it gained from the deputy's unlawful blood draw—that his BAC was over the legal limit. According to Van Linn, if the deputy had not unlawfully drawn Van Linn's blood, the State would not have known that the hospital's blood test would show he had a prohibited BAC and, therefore, "would have had no reason to seek a subpoena" for his medical records. Murray (v. United States), however, demonstrates that the independent- source doctrine can apply even though the State knew the hospital's blood test would show an unlawful BAC. . . . Murray teaches that the independent-source doctrine applies when the State has a separate reason to seek the challenged evidence apart from the knowledge it gains from an unlawful search. Here, the State had ample reasons to subpoena Van Linn's medical records for evidence of OWI, apart from what it learned from the deputy's unlawful blood draw. At the accident scene, the deputy found Van Linn's car crashed into the back of a cabin. His investigation revealed that Van Linn had veered off the road and into a ditch, where he hit a tree. The deputy smelled an "intoxicant" on Van Linn, and Van Linn admitted to having had "a couple of beers." While Van Linn was en route to the hospital, the deputy also learned that Van Linn had a reduced BAC restriction of 0.02. Moreover, the deputy arrested Van Linn for OWI prior to conducting the unlawful blood draw. . . . (T)he testing results of the deputy's unlawful blood draw "only served to confirm [the State's] prior suspicions": that Van Linn's BAC was over the legal limit. Stated differently, the State's decision to subpoena Van Linn's medical records was not prompted by what it learned from the deputy's unlawful blood draw. Granted, the State did not subpoena Van Linn's medical records until after the circuit court suppressed the deputy's unlawful blood draw. Van Linn argues that the State's subpoena is therefore the "direct result" of the deputy's unlawful conduct because, but for that conduct, there would have been nothing for the circuit court to suppress. And but for the circuit court's suppression decision, the State would not have subpoenaed the hospital. We hold that, despite the timing of the State's subpoena request, suppression is not justified for two reasons. First, in the exclusionary-rule context, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the strict but-for causality Van Linn presses here. The "more apt question" for whether the exclusionary rule applies is: did the State "exploit[]" the deputy's unlawful conduct? In this case, the State did not exploit the deputy's illegal conduct because, as explained above, the State had reasonable grounds to suspect Van Linn of OWI prior to anyone drawing his blood. Additionally, the blood-test evidence contained in Van Linn's medical records is "untainted" by the deputy's unlawful conduct because the hospital drew Van Linn's blood for its own diagnostic and treatment purposes, not at the direction of law enforcement. Second, suppressing the hospital's blood-test results would not further the purpose of the exclusionary rule, which is to deter police misconduct. The circuit court's suppression of the deputy's warrantless blood draw remedied the police misconduct in this case. Suppressing the hospital's diagnostic blood test, however, would have no further deterrent effect because it involved no police conduct at all, let alone misconduct. Moreover, suppressing the hospital's blood test runs counter to the exclusionary rule because it would put the State in a worse position than it occupied absent the deputy's unlawful conduct. ![]() The dissent Law enforcement drew Daniel Van Linn's blood without a warrant. He refused to give consent for the blood draw, but an officer nevertheless proceeded to extract his blood. No exception to the warrant requirement permitted such a search. After the circuit court suppressed the fruits of the State's unconstitutional foray, the State waited three months to try an end run around the Fourth Amendment and the circuit court's suppression ruling. It subpoenaed hospital records containing the information that the circuit court had earlier suppressed—Van Linn's blood alcohol content. Providing the State with an insurance policy in the event of an unconstitutional search, the majority tells law enforcement not to worry. The majority's message is: "If you violate a person's Fourth Amendment rights and the resulting evidence is suppressed, there will be no consequences because you can still gain the information through other means." In contrast, my message is: "Get a warrant." This entire appeal would not exist if law enforcement had simply sought a warrant in the first place. This court should not promote a search first and warrant later approach. And it certainly should not be condoning an approach that undermines the essence of the exclusionary rule, which is to prevent—not to repair. In giving its imprimatur to the State's tactic, the majority justifies its determination by invoking the independent source doctrine. Its rationale rests on two assertions: (1) that the State did not "exploit" the illegal search because it had "reasonable grounds" to suspect Van Linn of OWI before either law enforcement or medical personnel drew his blood; and (2) that disallowing the subpoena would have no effect on police misconduct. The first of these rationales answers the wrong question, obscuring the true inquiry of whether the unconstitutional search "prompted" the subpoena. And the second insulates law enforcement from the consequences of its unconstitutional actions. In doing so, the majority ignores that the consequence of its decision is to give a do-over to law enforcement in the event evidence gained through an unconstitutional search is suppressed. Because the majority obscures the constitutional inquiry, erroneously concludes that suppression of the hospital sample would have no effect on police misconduct, and turns the exclusionary rule on its head by creating a perverse incentive for law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches, I respectfully dissent. *** Despite the perverse incentive created by the majority opinion, the next officer to confront this situation should still just get a warrant. Indeed, the entire argument before this court would have been avoided from the get-go if law enforcement would have simply sought a warrant for the first draw of Van Linn’s blood. Judicial efficiency appreciates it and the constitution demands it.
The Journal Times: Judge sides with City of Racine in open records dispute. NPR: Federal judge strikes mandate for masks on public transportation. Slate: U.S. Supreme Court denies racial-bias claim by Black man on death row. Racism pervades every aspect of the death penalty, but it’s not often as obvious as it was at (Kristopher) Love’s 2018 trial. Love’s attorneys asked prospective jurors whether they believe that some races “tend to be more violent than others” in an attempt to smoke out illicit bias. One juror, Zachary Niesman—who is white—answered “yes,” elaborating: “Statistics show more violent crimes are committed by certain races. I believe in statistics.” During voir dire, Niesman doubled down on his beliefs. He told Love’s defense attorneys as well as the state prosecutors that he belived (sic) the “non-white” races to be the “more violent races.” He claimed that “news reports and criminology classes” bore this out, but added that his views were based on “statistics,” not “personal feelings towards one race or another.” Niesman then insisted that he would be a fair and impartial juror with no bias against Love on account of his race. Washington Monthly: Head of Brennan Center for Justice sees both alarms and optimism regarding voting rights. Fortune: Consumers blocked from class action lawsuits are using "mass arbitration" against corporations. TurboTax’s parent company, Intuit, is the latest major corporation facing a barrage of arbitration claims after consumers were blocked from moving forward with a class action lawsuit courtesy of mandatory arbitration stipulations. And how Intuit navigates the deluge could lead other companies to reconsider how they engage with legal disputes. Reuters: Hundreds of Texas convictions now questioned because prosecutor moonlighted as law clerk for judges in same cases. Starting in 2001, Weldon Petty prosecuted hundreds of criminal cases for the Midland County District Attorney’s Office while secretly moonlighting for the judges hearing those very same cases, even writing decisions for the court in some instances. . . . The conflicted arrangement was known to judges and at least two preceding district attorneys. It was uncovered publicly in 2019 when the current D.A. inadvertently found records showing Petty worked for the prosecution in a capital murder case against Clinton Young, while also working as a law clerk for the judge in the case. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Supreme Court adopts Republicans' maps.
In the 4-3 decision, Justice Brian Hagedorn joined the court's conservatives after earlier siding with its liberals. The ruling came at one of the last possible moments, falling on the day that candidates could begin circulating petitions to get on the ballot. The new maps tilt heavily in Republicans’ favor, with 63 of the 99 Assembly seats and 23 of the 33 Senate seats leaning toward the GOP, according to a December analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. . . . In Friday's . . . ruling, the justices concluded Evers had not provided enough evidence to show why race should be taken into account when drawing districts in Milwaukee. The Republican-drawn maps they adopted reduce the number of Assembly districts in Milwaukee with Black majorities from six to five. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Op-ed in favor of Wisconsin business courts in response to opinion against. HuffPost: U.S. Senate bill to lower cost of prison phone calls advances. The Detroit News: States and cities suing fossil fuel companies for climate-change damages. The governments suing the oil industry come from regions facing sea level rise, wildfires, drought, flooding and severe weather. They cite extensive news reporting — including investigations from the Los Angeles Times, Inside Climate News and The Guardian — that shows oil companies understood the dangers of climate change decades ago but led campaigns to undermine the scientific consensus that their products were contributing to a growing crisis. CNN: Steve Bannon moves to dismiss criminal contempt case against him. "Mr. Bannon received actual authority in this case for his non-compliance with the subpoena directly from former President Trump's invocation of executive privilege and corresponding directive to Mr. Bannon, that Mr. Bannon must honor that invocation with respect to the subpoena," Bannon's attorneys wrote in the court filing. Marijuana Moment: U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency says illegal marijuana trafficking from Mexico has declined due to U.S. domestic production. WPR: State Supreme Court won't reinstate permit for frac company that would impact wetlands.
"They must submit basic data about the soils and hydrology of the wetlands they want to fill, so that those values can be assessed. And, more importantly, so that the impacts to those values can be mitigated, and that assessment is required before a permit is issued," said MEA (Midwest Environmental Advocates) attorney Rob Lee. "But, DNR, under the Walker administration tried to get around that missing information by granting the permit, and then just putting conditions in there that that information could be submitted at a later date. That's unlawful." WBAY (Associated Press): Wisconsin claims board says Milwaukee man deserves $1 million for 24 years in prison for crime he did not commit. ABC: Federal judge expresses concern about democracy and blames Donald Trump. "You know, I think our democracy is in trouble," Judge Reggie Walton said at the conclusion of the third jury trial for a defendant charged in the Capitol assault. "Because unfortunately, we have charlatans like our former president, who doesn't in my view really care about democracy, but only about power. And as a result of that, it's tearing this country apart." Reuters: Judge confirms jury verdict against Tesla regarding hostile environment for Black worker but cuts damages award by over $100 million. Reuters: Juul settles litigation brought by Washington State. E-cigarette maker Juul Labs Inc has agreed to pay $22.5 million to settle a lawsuit by the state of Washington accusing it of fueling a vaping epidemic by marketing its products to appeal to minors and deceiving consumers about their addictiveness. The settlement, announced Wednesday by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, is Juul's fourth with a state over similar claims. The company agreed to pay $40 million to North Carolina last June and $14.5 million to Arizona last November, and Louisiana last week moved to drop its case against Juul pursuant to a $10 million settlement. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Supreme Court hears argument on absentee ballot rules regarding drop boxes and mailing.
“What if I take my envelope, and I seal it and I stick the stamp on it and I put my return address on it and I am standing at the mailbox and I hand it to my son to go the arm's length from where I am standing into the mailbox?” Justice Jill Karofsky asked. “Has that been mailed by the elector?” “Within the meaning of the statute, no, because you’ve given the ballot to somebody else,” replied Rick Esenberg, the president of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, the conservative group that mounted the challenge to absentee rules. SCOTUSblog: Another case about qualified immunity up for consideration by U.S. Supreme Court. NBC: Department of Justice settling four cases involving 2020 Lafayette Square protestors. The Justice Department has reached a settlement in four cases stemming from law enforcement's response to racial justice demonstrations in Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., just days after the murder of George Floyd. As part of the settlement, U.S. Park Police agreed to revise its policies governing demonstrations and special events. NBC: Judge grants bail to two men charged with posing as federal agents. The Appeal: The call to jail a five-year-old. The case perfectly exemplifies America’s absurd belief that prisons are the best—or only—way society can deal with humans who hurt other humans. According to reports, two students, ages 4 and 5, began throwing items around a pre-K classroom at Pines Lakes Elementary School in Pembroke Pines, Florida. A teacher responded by taking the 5-year-old to a separate room to cool down. Once there, the child allegedly attacked the teacher, leaving the adult wheezing and unable to speak. The teacher was then transported to the hospital and needed to be intubated. This was the third instance in which the student had injured that same teacher. But, rather than report the incident as an unfortunate accident or a sign that Broward County Schools need to change their policies when dealing with special-needs kids, media outlets were only able to see the incident through a carceral lens. Reporters responded by posting the police incident report and suggesting the small child could “face a charge of aggravated assault.” Police and prosecutors ultimately decided not to send the toddler to jail. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Michael Gableman blames two judges for delays in his election investigation.
Gableman's review of the election is months behind schedule, in part because of legal disputes. Without naming them, Gableman blamed the two judges considering those cases — Waukesha County Circuit Judge Ralph Ramirez and Dane County Circuit Judge Rhonda Lanford — for the delays. "The judges who are dragging this out, they know better," Gableman told WTAQ-AM host Joe Giganti. "They know that the law is very clear, that the Legislature gets to perform legislative oversight. They know that the Legislature is entitled to these interviews, they’re entitled to these documents." Minutes later, Gableman indicated he wanted to avoid talking about state Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn, who was elected in 2019 with the help of Republicans but has ruled with liberals in some high-profile cases. "Let’s not even go there," Gableman said of Hagedorn. Salon: Former Trump lawyer John Eastman still urging Wisconsin officials to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: State Supreme Court stops further review of Racine school referendum that passed by five votes. A unanimous state Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled those challenging a narrowly decided 2020 school referendum in Racine did not have a right to have ballots re-examined in court after they had already been reviewed during a recount. Associated Press: Bill to legalize medical marijuana in Wisconsin scheduled for public hearing, though Legislature has adjourned. Reuters: Gunmakers ask federal judge to dismiss Mexico's lawsuit seeking $10 billion in damages. Mexico in a lawsuit filed in August accused (Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co.) of undermining its strict gun laws by designing, marketing and distributing military-style assault weapons in ways they knew would arm drug cartels, fueling murders and kidnappings. It said over 500,000 guns are trafficked annually from the United States into Mexico, of which more than 68% are made by the gun makers it sued, which also include Beretta USA, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Colt's Manufacturing Co and Glock Inc. Brookings: Addressing the disproportionate effects of facial recognition and other surveillance on communities of color. Governments and private companies have a long history of collecting data from civilians, often justifying the resulting loss of privacy in the name of national security, economic stability, or other societal benefits. But it is important to note that these trade-offs do not affect all individuals equally. In fact, surveillance and data collection have disproportionately affected communities of color under both past and current circumstances and political regimes. Reason: Man transporting diesel fuel spends six weeks in jail based on unreliable field test reading positive for methamphetamine. As Reason reported last year, such drug field test kits are manufactured by several different companies and are used by police departments and prison systems across the country. The test kits use instant color reactions to indicate the presence of certain compounds found in illegal drugs, but those same compounds are also found in dozens of known licit substances. And although the tests are fairly simple to use, they're still prone to user error and misinterpretation. Because of this, they are generally not admissible as evidence in court, but police still use them to establish probable cause to arrest and jail people. This has led to hundreds of known instances of wrongful arrests and even guilty pleas from defendants facing charges for test results that crime labs would later invalidate. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: ACLU of Wisconsin investigating whether Waukesha School District's signage policies on violate students' constitutional rights.
"Community members have reported that, at least in some schools, along with the displays mentioned above, Gay-Straight Alliance locker signs are also banned, but football team locker signs are allowed, as are Students for Life lobby signs, a 'Thin Blue Line' sign, and a poster of Ronald Reagan. Additionally, it is our understanding that a student has been allowed to distribute political campaign materials while another student was reprimanded for distributing (diversity, equity, and inclusion) materials," the ACLU of Wisconsin said. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Prison population has dropped by 3,000 since March 2020, but not due to intentional actions to reduce the incarcerated population. The number of people arrested has fallen by more than 25 percent in the last two years, from 238,528 in 2019 to 175,551 in 2021, according to the Wisconsin Department of Justice. The state's court system, meanwhile, slowed to a crawl as the pandemic raged, leaving judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys to deal with a massive backlog of cases still expected to take years to sort out. Wisconsin Newspaper Association (WisPolitics.com): Already talking about Wisconsin's 2023 supreme court election. Reuters: Republicans turn their attention to state supreme court races. There are nearly 90 state supreme court seats on the ballot nationally this year, according to the elections website Ballotpedia, and control of the top courts in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan and Illinois are all in play. The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), which supports down-ballot statewide candidates, plans to pour more than $5 million into the most high-profile contests. That would be a record for the group, which is one of dozens of organizations and political action committees likely to spend money on the races. Reuters: Google sues Cameroonian for allegedly using its services for scam pet sales. Elder advocacy group AARP tipped Google to the scam last September following a complaint from a South Carolina resident who had sent $700 in digital gift cards to an online seller for a basset hound puppy that never came, according to Google's lawsuit in U.S. district court in San Jose. To study bail jumping in Wisconsin, WJI and the Mastantuono Coffee & Thomas law firm will look county by county at 2021 bail-jumping charges. Which counties are charging bail jumping the most? Who are some of the defendants? What happens to those cases? We'll report the statistics from individual counties and tell you the stories from randomly chosen cases. Adams County Total number of cases with bail-jumping charges: 103
Total number of misdemeanor and felony cases: 390 Percent of misdemeanor and felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 26% Total number of felony cases with bail-jumping charges: 65* Total number of all felony cases: 179 Percent of felony cases that include bail-jumping charges: 36 Total number of misdemeanor cases with bail-jumping charges: 38 Total number of all misdemeanor cases: 211 Percent of misdemeanor cases that include bail-jumping charges: 18 Largest number of bail-jumping charges issued in a single case: 12 Number of felony bail-jumping charges issued: 119 Number of misdemeanor bail-jumping charges issued: 118 *Felony cases can include felony or misdemeanor bail-jumping charges or both; misdemeanor cases can include only misdemeanor bail-jumping charges. Case file The 30-year-old Wisconsin Dells woman was out on bond for a Sauk County hit and run. She allegedly ran a red light and crashed into a Honda Civic, leaving a man shaken and slightly injured. He was bleeding from the mouth and his back was sore, according to the criminal complaint. A trip to the emergency room showed that he was bruised, but nothing was broken and he did not need stitches. After the accident, the woman allegedly left her car and ran away on foot. When police got there, the abandoned car smelled like booze and there was an open can of Budweiser, about a third full, on the front passenger floor. There also were two other unopened containers of alcohol – a 16-ounce can of Steel Reserve and a one-shot bottle of Smirnoff vodka. There was a debit card with the woman's name on it. The woman eventually was arrested. She was charged with felony hit and run and was released in May 2001 on a $1,000 signature bond. In August, while that charge was pending, she got in trouble again, this time in Adams County. First she argued with her boyfriend, then later with her mother at her mother's house. She was intoxicated and angry that her mother would not let her leave, drunk, with her children. At some point, the woman punched her hand through a screen door. Deputies from the Adams County Sheriff's Department arrived. The woman told a sergeant that "she just wanted to go home and became increasingly argumentative with deputies....She made comments that she wanted deputies to shoot her and she would rather die in front of her child...." the complaint said. When deputies tried to handcuff her, she tried to pull her arm away and refused to cooperate. They took her to the ground and cuffed her. She later resisted getting into a squad, kicked at the door and slammed her head into the side of the car. A deputy eventually was able to calm her down and get her to cooperate. She was charged with felony bail jumping, misdemeanor criminal damage to property with a domestic abuse assessment, misdemeanor resisting an officer, and misdemeanor disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse assessment. The misdemeanors each carried maximums of 9 months or less in jail. The bail-jumping charge carried a maximum term of six years in prison. She was booked and released on signature bond. The woman pleaded no contest in Sauk County Circuit Court to misdemeanor hit and run. She was sentenced to one year's probation and ordered to serve 30 days in jail with work-release privileges. Circuit Judge Patricia A. Barrett also ordered her to participate in alcohol and other drug abuse treatment and to participate in any ordered follow-up counseling/treatment. Barrett also ordered her to pay $27,552 in restitution. The Adams County felony bail-jumping charge was dropped as part of a plea agreement, as was the misdemeanor criminal damage to property charge. The woman pleaded guilty to the resisting and disorderly conduct charges and was sentenced to a year of probation. Circuit Judge Daniel Wood, like his Sauk County counterpart, ordered her to participate in AODA treatment and follow-up. Our methodology: WJI and Mastantuano Coffee & Thomas determined the number of felony and misdemeanor bail-jumping cases and charges in each county through court data. The total number of felony and misdemeanor cases filed in a county was obtained through the state's online court system. Cases selected for the "case file" section are chosen randomly through a random number-generator web site. The intent of the project is to show a variety of bail-jumping cases. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Gov. Tony Evers signs law to create youth facility near Milwaukee.
Evers' action is the second time in four years a Wisconsin governor has moved to stop sending children to a facility in Lincoln County plagued with dangerous conditions for most of its decade of life as the state's only youth prison. "For years, legislators have been talking about closing Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake as a juvenile facility while simultaneously delaying and obstructing plans to do so,” Evers said in a statement. "... these kids will be closer to home, their families, and their support networks, so we can set them up for better success both while they are in our care and when they re-enter our communities." Reuters: Chief Justice John Roberts joins liberal justices in criticizing Supreme Court's use of shadow docket. WPR: At White House event Hon. Ketanji Brown Jackson notes the historic meaning of her nomination. Business Insider: The economic costs of incarceration in the U.S. So while the annual operations costs of America's prison system is around $80 billion every year, that's just what it costs to feed and clothe prisoners and pay for facilities and operations. In 2017, nonprofit think-tank the Prison Policy Initiative estimated that if you take all the indirect impacts in mind, the true economic cost of incarceration in the US is about $180 billion per year. Reuters: Judge rules in favor of Trump Organization regarding shutdown of golf course. A Manhattan judge ruled Friday there was no “legal foundation” for former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision to cancel the city’s contract with Trump Golf Links at Ferry Point Park in the Bronx following the Jan. 6 insurrection. De Blasio administration officials notified the Trump Organization on Jan. 15, 2021, that the city was pulling the group’s operating license for the 18-hole course in the Throgs Neck section of the Bronx. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|