By Gretchen Schuldt Milwaukee County Chief Judge Mary Triggiano has said it will take up to two years to clear the case backlog in the criminal division of the county's circuit court system. Outagamie County District Attorney Melinda Tempelis told officials there that the county's backlog has risen from 1,700 in 2019 to more than 3,000 this year. In counties all over the state, COVID has slowed courts to a crawl. There were 58,678 pending criminal cases in circuit court in December 2019, according to state statistics. By December 2020, that number had risen 28%, to 75,153, an increase of 16,475. State population: 5,822,434 Biggest change: The number of felony cases went up by 35%, or 9991 cases, from December 2019 to December 2020. according to state statistics. Median age of pending cases: 2019 – 130 days; 2020 – 170 days, up 31%. The increases have hit counties large and small and in between. WJI ecamined the differences in 15 counties – the five largest by population, the five smallest, and five smack in the middle. We'll look at the five largest cases today, and the rest next week. Large Counties Milwaukee County population: 939,489 Biggest change: The number of felony cases shot up by 33%, or 1,267 cases, from from December 2019 to December 2020. Of note: Pending criminal traffic cases fell by 437, or 43%, likely the result of less traffic and the reluctance of officers, due to COVID concerns, to come in direct contact with drivers. As measured as a percentage, Milwaukee County had the second smallest increase in pending cases among the five counties – 18%. Median age of pending cases: 2019 – 124 days; 2020 – 269 days, up 117%. Dane County population: 561,504 Biggest changes: As measured by numbers, pending felonies increased by 1,598, the most in any category. As measured in percent, pending misdemeanors rose 83%, also tops. Of note: Dane County saw big increases in all three categories. Pending felonies were up 73%, misdemeanors, as stated above, were up 83%, and criminal traffic cases were up 61%. Its overall increase in pending criminal cases was 76%. Median age of pending cases: 2019 – 126 days; 2020 – 211 days, up 67%. Waukesha County population: 406,978 Biggest changes: As measured by numbers, pending misdemeanors increased by 826, the most in any category. As measured as a percent, pending felonies rose 68%, also tops. Of note: Waukesha County also saw big increases in all three categories. The smallest increase was in pending criminal traffic cases, which were up 365, or 56%. Pending misdemeanor cases rose by 826, or 63%. It's overall increase in all three types of cases was 64%. Median age of pending cases: 2019 – 127 days; 2020 – 170 days, up 34%. Brown County population: 268,470 Biggest changes: Pending felony cases were up by 639, or 39%. Of note: Pending criminal traffic cases were up by just 53 cases, or 10%. Median age of pending cases: 2019 – 138 days; 2020 – 182 days, up 32%. Racine County population: 197,727
Biggest changes: Pending felony cases were up by 345, or 27%. Of note: Like Milwaukee County, Racine County saw a decline in pending criminal traffic cases. They were down by 115, or 16%. Racine County saw a 9% increase in pending cases of all types, the smallest increase among the five counties. Median age of pending cases: 2019 – 155 days; 2020 – 169 days, up 9%.
0 Comments
Vox: The U.S. Supreme Court finally figures out that religious liberty cases are hard.
Several justices, who have in the past suggested that religious rights are so important they trump concerns about public health and preventing discrimination, signaled that these rights may not be quite so potent when they might interfere with an execution. The New York Times: The courts have it in for American workers. NPR: Judge approves $626 million settlement in Flint, Michigan lead / water case. Law & Crime: Kyle Rittenhouse defense team has a jury consultant on board who also helped O.J. Simpson. TechCrunch: Infrastructure bill mandates drunk-driving detection equipment in new cars. More links and stories on our Facebook page! Lowering the Bar: Woman sues because there is more than strawberries in strawberry Pop-Tarts.
Shepherd Express: Shannon Ross – from incarceration to prison reform. I think the way the legal system operates is destructive to everyone who does not profit from it. Our prison system does not provide protection, does not rehabilitate people inside. It largely warehouses problems until they come back again. 95% of people sent to prison get out and society pays a large amount for each one during that time and beyond. But society is not at all getting a good return on that environment. If an incarcerated person wants to rehabilitate, you almost have to do it on your own. AP via KGO-TV: Women gave birth to the "wrong" babies after embryo mix-up, suit says. They suppressed their doubts because they fell in love with the baby and trusted the in vitro fertilization process and their doctors, Daphna (Cardinale) said. Learning months later that she had been pregnant with another couple's baby, and that another woman had been carrying her child, caused enduring trauma, she said. "I was overwhelmed by feelings of fear, betrayal, anger and heartbreak," Daphna said during a news conference with her husband announcing the lawsuit. "I was robbed of the ability to carry my own child. I never had the opportunity to grow and bond with her during pregnancy, to feel her kick." Politico: Trump cannot keep records from Jan. 6 committee, judge rules. Federal Trade Commission: FTC is returning $60 million to drivers whose tips were illegally grabbed up by Amazon. More links and stories on our Facebook page! Marijuana Moment: Legislation to study marijuana from dispensaries moves to Biden's desk.
KXII: Two former Oklahoma officers found guilty of second-degree murder in tasing-related death. The jury says Brandon Dingman and Joshua Taylor are guilty of murdering Jared Lakey and recommended a sentence of 10 years in prison. After the decision was made, they were taken into custody of the Carter County Sheriff’s Office. The Wilson man was tased 53 times by the officers when they tried to restrain him two years ago. North Carolina Health News: Evidence-based reentry resources needed for sicker incarcerated population, researchers say. There has been little funding directed at studying the process of reentering society after incarceration, said Evan Ashkin, professor of family medicine at the school of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. However, research suggests that support from peers, people who have been through similar experiences, during reentry is beneficial for people leaving incarceration. Ashkin, the founder of NC FIT, which connects formerly incarcerated people with health needs to health care services and other reentry resources, says employing community health workers, people with lived experience with incarceration, to help connect people to the right services is “the only reason” NC FIT works. Reentering society after incarceration, whether it be after a week-long detainment at the local jail or over a decade in prison, can be a challenge — especially since incarcerated people are frequently sicker than the general population, with higher rates of diseases such as diabetes or hepatitis C. Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court ponders feds' bid to block Muslims' civil rights suit. The justices must decide whether to reject the bulk of the claims based on the government's so-called state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine sometimes asserted when national security interests are invoked. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 ruled against the FBI on that point, though the Supreme Court could overturn that decision. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said there is "a pretty good argument" that the government is using the state secrets privilege as a way to block the lawsuit without giving the allegations a full airing. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said it would be premature to dismiss the claims without the trial judge getting a chance to properly review certain documents related to the case. "My point is there should be a way to look at the information...and decide what to do," Breyer said. HuffPost: Pillow Guy promises U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit to "pull down" the 2020 election. Mike Lindell, a potential witness in the U.S. House select committee’s investigation of the Capitol riot, said that his 96-hour broadcast will coincide with his filing of a long-promised lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court that will “pull down” the 2020 election and will run from midnight of the Wednesday before Thanksgiving through midnight Sunday. “We are going to show every single piece of evidence,” he said. That period happens to coincide with “Black Friday” and the adjacent weekend ― typically the busiest shopping days of the holiday season, but Lindell said none of the programming would contain any advertising for his MyPillow line of products. More links and stories on our Facebook page! The Intercept: U.S. Treasury is buying private app data to target and investigate people.
Two contracts obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request and shared with The Intercept by Tech Inquiry, a research and advocacy group, show that over the past four months, the Treasury acquired two powerful new data feeds from Babel Street: one for its sanctions enforcement branch, and one for the Internal Revenue Service. Both feeds enable government use of sensitive data collected by private corporations not subject to due process restrictions. Critics were particularly alarmed that the Treasury acquired access to location and other data harvested from smartphone apps; users are often unaware of how widely apps share such information. AP: Private prison didn't want to raise detainee work wages, so it cut sanitation services instead. “It got really gross — nobody cleaned anything,” Ivan Sanchez, a 34-year-old detainee from Jalisco, Mexico, said in a phone interview from the jail. “We pick up after ourselves, but nobody sweeps or mops. The guards were saying it wasn’t their job to clean the toilets. ... It caused a lot of animosity between the detainees and the officers because of that.” Further, they said, not being able to work makes it harder for detainees to buy extra food at the center’s commissary, supplementing what they consider to be inadequate meals provided by GEO. Click On Detroit: Suspension upheld for doctor who approved 22,000 medical marijuana certificates in a year. Above the Law: Judge, in joke order, bans Elf on the Shelf. AP: Feds seek 44-month sentence in first Jan. 6 riot case that involved violence. More links and stories on our Facebook page! By Gretchen Schuldt The Milwaukee County Board on Monday unanimously approved establishing a program to provide defense counsel to indigent defendants accused of violating county ordinances. The measure, introduced by Supervisors Joseph Czarnezki and Ryan Clancy, picked up 11 additional sponsors during Monday's meeting. They were Board Chair Marcelia Nicholson, and Supervisors Priscilla E. Coggs-Jones, Eddie Cullen, Russell Antonio Goodwin Sr., Jason Haas, Willie Johnson, Jr., Patti Logsdon, Felesia Martin, Shawn Rolland, Steven Shea, and Sequanna Taylor. Czarnezki, during the Board discussion, noted that the county put significant resources into writing tickets, prosecuting their recipients, and collecting forfeiture amounts owed. Yet defendants are expected to represent themselves in court without assistance if they cannot afford it, he said. (Full disclosure: Czarnezki is a WJI Board member.) Approving the pilot is a small thing the county can do to improve justice and equity in the county, he said. "By providing funding for legal counsel for indigent individuals, County Board members showed they believe in justice for the most vulnerable in our community," he said after the meeting. The 17-0 vote came during the County Board's deliberations on the 2022 county budget. The budget still must be approved by County Executive David Crowley. Because county ordinance violations are considered civil and not criminal violations, poor people accused of them are not entitled to government-provided attorneys if they cannot afford to hire their own.
Clancy said ordinance forfeitures were a "tax on the poor" and that he would prefer that fewer citations be written. "It really is an inherently unfair system," he said. The attorney pilot program is "an elegant solution," he said. Under the amendment, the corporation counsel's office would seek proposals for a contract attorney to represent the defendants. The $50,000 program would be a pilot, and data would be collected to help determine if it should be continued. The program would be patterned after one operated by Legal Action of Wisconsin that provides defense lawyers for indigent defendants in Milwaukee Municipal Court, which hears cases involving city ordinances. State law mandates that people arrested for certain ordinance violations, such as controlled substance offenses or some gambling cases, have their personal and arrest information entered into the state's criminal database, where it is available to potential employers, colleges, landlords, or anyone else with the $7 fee to get it, Czarnezki said. While those who are never actually charged or who are acquitted can request that their information be removed from the database if they submit a request and their fingerprints, most people don't know how to go about doing that. A lawyer, Czarnezki said, can help clients negotiate the court process. remind them about court dates, help them with payment plans, and help get records removed from the state database. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Judge orders release of Wisconsin election review records.
The New York Times: Congress investigating McKinsey & Co. for its role in the opioid epidemic. The 12-page letter, which was sent by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, asked for names of McKinsey clients in the health care industry as well as documents connected to its work with opioid manufacturers, distributors and retailers. The committee is also looking at how McKinsey’s consulting for drugmakers may conflict with work it has done for the Food and Drug Administration. MarketWatch: Feds search Project Veritas-related homes in investigation related to group's possession of President Biden's daughter's diary. The Guardian: Why telling a cop in New Jersey you have COVID could get you 10 years in prison. Wired: 1.8 TB of police helicopter surveillance leaks online. More links and stories on our Facebook page! 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: Kathy Schwab v. Paul Schwab Majority: Justice Rebecca F. Dallet (12 pages), joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Jill J. Karofsky, and Patience D. Roggensack. Dissent: Justice Annette K. Ziegler (11 pages), joined by Justices Rebecca Grassl Bradley and Brian Hagedorn. Dissent: Grassl Bradley (8 pages) The Upshot Kathy Siech and Paul Schwab divorced in 1992. As part of the divorce judgment, the circuit court incorporated their marital settlement agreement, in which Paul promised to pay Kathy half of his pension "when and if" that benefit first became available to him. But when Paul first received his pension nearly 21 years later, he refused to pay Kathy her share. Kathy sought to judicially enforce their agreement via a contempt order, to which Paul responded that her action was barred by a 20-year statute of repose (meaning that it was too late legally for her to come after the money). Kathy started contempt proceedings and won in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision and Kathy appealed to the Supremes. Accordingly, §893.40 does not bar Kathy's action because it was impossible for Paul to perform on his promise – and therefore for Kathy to enforce that promise – until after the statutory period of repose had run. We therefore reverse the court of appeals' decision and reinstate the circuit court's order. Background In February 1992, the circuit court granted Kathy and Paul, then both 39 years old, a divorce judgment. The judgment incorporated Kathy and Paul's marital settlement agreement, which detailed how they would divide their marital property and stated that the circuit court would retain "continuing jurisdiction . . . to make orders enforcing" that division. Under one provision, Paul agreed to provide Kathy half his Air National Guard pension "when and if" it became available to him. Paul's pension first became available to him in February 2013 when he turned 60 years old, roughly 21 years after the divorce judgment was entered. Although he received regular pension disbursements, Paul never paid Kathy her share. In 2017, Kathy requested both her share of past payments and that Paul sign a military retired pay order per so that her share of Paul's future disbursements would be sent directly to her. Paul refused to pay her or to sign the pay order. Kathy then initiated contempt proceedings. Paul argued that Kathy's contempt action was untimely under Wis. Stat. §893.40. That provision, a statute of repose, bars any "action upon a judgment or decree of a court" brought more than "20 years after the judgment . . . is entered." Paul reasoned that because the 1992 judgment was entered more than 20 years earlier, Kathy's contempt action was barred by statute.... The circuit court ordered Paul to pay Kathy her share of pension payments and to sign the military retired pay order within 30 days or it would find him in contempt of court.... The court of appeals reversed, determining that §893.40 barred Kathy's contempt action.... The Guts
We resolved a similar question in Johnson v. Masters. There, we held that §893.40 did not bar an action to enforce a divorce judgment's pension division brought more than 20 years after the judgment was entered, because it was impossible to comply with the judgment for the first nine years. Johnson and Masters' divorce judgment, entered in 1989, required that Johnson be awarded half of Masters' pension and that a "QDRO [qualified domestic relations order] shall be submitted to secure these rights." The parties could not immediately submit the required order, however, because from the time of their divorce until the law was amended in 1998, Wisconsin law prohibited the assignment of state pension benefits via a QRDO. Upon learning in 2010 that Masters had retired a year earlier, Johnson filed a QDRO. When Masters refused to sign the required authorization, Johnson filed a post-judgment motion requesting that Masters release his pension information. Masters argued that Johnson's motion, filed 21 years after entry of the divorce judgment, was untimely under §893.40. The circuit court agreed. We reversed the circuit court's order, determining that §893.40 did not bar Johnson's motion because then-existing law made it impossible for the parties to execute the required QDRO for the first nine years after the divorce judgment. Johnson turned on our duty to interpret statutes to avoid "unreasonable results" and to "constru[e] each in a manner that serves its purpose...." We further recognized that this court elsewhere accommodates ongoing obligations in family law judgments that extend beyond 20 years....(Wis. Stat. §767.01 authorizes courts to do "all acts and things necessary and proper" in family law actions "to carry their orders and judgments into execution"). Those same principles apply here. At the time Kathy and Paul's divorce judgment was entered in 1992, Paul's pension benefits would not be available to him until he turned 60 years old in February 2013, 21 years later....Because the divorce judgment required Paul to divide his pension only "when and if" the pension became "available" to him, that division was impossible prior to February 2013. The "when and if" condition also made it impossible for Kathy to judicially enforce the agreement during those first 21 years because that action would not be ripe until Paul's pension became available. It would be unreasonable to interpret §893.40 as barring enforcement now of a marital property division that was impossible to enforce during the 20 years prior. That result would also be unreasonable because it would render Paul's promised pension division illusory and deny Kathy the benefit she bargained for in the marital settlement agreement. When Paul promised to pay Kathy half his pension, the earliest he could do so was one year after the statute of repose would have run. Under Paul's reading of §893.40, then, he made no real promise to pay Kathy half his pension. Rather, at Paul's sole "will and discretion," he could pay Kathy her share or not and be free of liability either way under the statute of repose. Such a "promise" is illusory. An illusory promise in a martial settlement agreement disturbs the balance of mutual obligations. Paul's promise to pay Kathy half his pension's value "when" it became available to him was critical to the rest of their agreement. Had Kathy known that Paul's "promise" was illusory and unenforceable, she likely would have negotiated for a different distribution of the other marital assets.... At its core, a statute of repose seeks to ameliorate the possibility that parties and courts will be stuck "litigating claims in which the truth may be obfuscated by death or disappearance of key witnesses, loss of evidence, and faded memories." WPR: Milwaukee's Shannon Ross is "all in" on justice reform. (Audio)
The Texas Tribune: U.S. Justice Department sues Texas over new voting law. While Democrats and voter advocacy groups have attacked SB 1 as a Republican move to suppress turnout in Texas cities — primarily voters of color who tend to lean Democratic — the Justice Department focused its suit on two provisions which it says violate the federal Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One places strict limits on how much assistance can be given to voters who, because of disabilities or limited English proficiency, may need help navigating the voting process. The second places new constraints on how people who vote by mail verify their identities. Brennan Center: The U.S. Supreme Court may decide if feds can continue to hide behind "national security." The Brennan Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Fazaga alongside the Due Process Institute, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, FreedomWorks, and TechFreedom. We argue that allowing the state secrets privilege to block judicial review would make civil litigation challenging abuses of power under FISA virtually impossible. That would clearly violate Congress’s intent in passing FISA, and it is even more problematic considering that the government has already found ways to evade other pathways to accountability in cases like these. Forbes: A record share of adults – 68%– support cannabis legalization. WISN: Jeffrey Norman appointed Milwaukee police chief. Norman previously applied for the position and advanced to a group of six finalists, but was not chosen among the final three candidates in the initial search for Morales' replacement. The FPC later voted to terminate the search and begin a new process with Norman as the only applicant. More links and stories on our Facebook page! CNN: Defense keeps most Black jurors off panel hearing the case of Ahmaud Arbery's killing.
Judge Timothy Walmsley said the defense appeared to be discriminatory in selecting the jury but that the case could go forward. "This court has found that there appears to be intentional discrimination," Walmsley said Wednesday. The New York Times: U.S. Supreme Court justices appear hostile to New York's gun law. Wisconsin Examiner: Bill would provide the press and public with more access to police records. AP: U.S. Department of Justice says it's cracking down on cybercrime. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|