Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Hiatus (but new articles are on the way)

Knightly and I will be taking a brief hiatus -- probably for the balance of the year -- so I can finish my newest article on trial practice and the "third-party defense" in criminal cases.  In the meantime, stay tuned for my two forthcoming articles on the Miranda warning.  They'll be published by the SMU Law Review and the Idaho Law Review later this year, and I'll post them on the blog and my website as soon as the journals publish them.  Both articles expose the law enforcement tactics that have completely gutted Miranda's safeguards.  One of the articles -- coauthored with psychologist Larry White and his former student Anthony Domanico -- analyzes actual, recorded police interrogations of felony suspects in Milwaukee.  Nothing beats real-world examples to demonstrate exactly how the government is obliterating yet another of our constitutional rights. Happy holidays!  

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Wisconsin’s costly paternalism


Tyler H., a thirteen-year-old Wisconsin kid, was having a really bad day.  First, his brother didn’t like the way Tyler was chewing his food, so he “hit Tyler in the back.”  Then, when the inevitable wrestling match ensued, the boys’ mother got into the act and hit Tyler in “his mouth.”  After getting struck by his mother, Tyler did not react physically; instead, he swore at his mother and smartly “left the house.”  But then Tyler’s mother decided to exacerbate her disastrous parenting by calling the police—that’s right: the police.  And once these government agents were invited into what should have been a family matter, things got even worse for young Tyler.

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Wisconsin Supreme Court muddies the waters in plea bargaining


In State v. Frey, the defendant agreed to plead to certain charges and the state agreed to dismiss certain charges outright, rather than read them in, at sentencing.  This distinction between dismissing charges outright and dismissing and reading them in has always been a critical one.  In countless cases (including this one, for example) courts routinely recognized the distinction.  Even the official plea form that the defendant is required to fill out and sign warns him that “the judge may consider read-in charges when imposing sentence[.]”  Of course, in light of this warning, the only rational conclusion is that charges dismissed and not read in, i.e., dismissed outright or simply dismissed, cannot be considered by the judge when imposing sentence.  This makes sense for a couple of reasons.