Nov

3

Pondering the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Criminal Docket

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | November 3, 2009 | Leave a Comment

Last week, I was delighted to participate in the Conference on the Wisconsin Supreme Court organized by Rick Esenberg.  The panel I moderated reviewed some of the court’s most significant criminal cases last term.  But “most significant” is a relative term, and I don’t think any of the panelists found the court’s recent criminal cases [...]

Nov

3

Drug Courts after Twenty Years: What Next?

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | November 3, 2009 | 3 Comments

I’ve been meaning to blog about the interesting new report from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers on drug courts, but alum Tony Cotton (a member of the NACDL Board of Directors) has beaten me to the punch.  (For my own take on drug courts — voicing some of the same concerns as Tony – see [...]

Oct

31

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Of Hearsay and Bootstraps

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 31, 2009 | 1 Comment

The court staked out no new legal ground in its opinions last week, so I’ll just briefly describe a case that nicely illustrates a classic problem in evidence law.  Based on information provided by a confidential informant, Milwaukee police stopped a Ford Excursion on suspicion of drug activity.  Inside were Marc Cannon (the driver), David Harris (Cannon’s cousin), [...]

Oct

26

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Other Bad Acts and the “Intricately Related” Doctrine

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 26, 2009 | Leave a Comment

Criminal law and procedure are structured around the act requirement: a defendant is prosecuted for performing a specifically identified unlawful act, the criminal trial is designed to determine whether the defendant actually committed that act, and, once the defendant has been convicted and punished, we commonly say that he has paid his debt to society and should be [...]

Oct

21

Federal Sentencing and the Lack of Theory in Criminal Justice

Posted by: Chris Donovan | October 21, 2009 | 1 Comment

Defendants in federal criminal cases often cooperate with the government to get their sentence reduced, especially when facing an extremely high statutory mandatory minimum (it is not uncommon for federal defendants to face mandatory minimums of ten years or higher).  In these cases, to get below the mandatory minimum, the government must file a motion to [...]

Oct

19

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Good Enough for Government Work

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 19, 2009 | Leave a Comment

Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), certain drug offenders face a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment if they have two prior drug felony convictions.  As befits such a draconian statute, special procedural protections have been adopted to ensure that the mandatory minimum does not take defendants by suprise at sentencing.  Thus, 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) requires [...]

Oct

14

When the Answer is No: Constitutional Protection for Faith Healing?

Posted by: Richard M. Esenberg | October 14, 2009 | 2 Comments

The tragic case of  Kara Neumann highlights one of the problems with robust protection for the free exercise of religion. Kara died of untreated diabetes because her parents chose to pray rather than take her to the doctor. Both have been convicted of second degree reckless homicide. How does their prosecution square with robust protection [...]

Oct

13

A Case For Jury Nullification

Posted by: Chris Donovan | October 13, 2009 | 7 Comments

Jury nullification is a controversial issue in criminal law.  There are undoubtedly many definitions of it, but it occurs most fundamentally when a jury acquits a defendant even when the letter of the law says that he or she committed a crime.  Appearing at first blush as a theory for anarchists, it is a well-established power [...]

Oct

11

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Halfway Houses Back on the Menu

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 11, 2009 | Leave a Comment

If Congress makes an obvious error in drafting a statute, can a court correct that error by effectively adding something to the statute that is not there?  Such was the interesting jurisprudential question the Seventh Circuit confronted last January in United States v. Head, 552 F.3d 640 (2009).  Because of a mix-up with statutory cross-references, the [...]

Oct

10

ACS Presentation on 2008-09 Supreme Court Opinions

Posted by: Joshua Pollack | October 10, 2009 | Leave a Comment

With the beginning of the 2009-2010 term of the Supreme Court, the Marquette Chapter of American Constitution Society for Law and Public Policy (ACS) spent a lunch-hour discussing some of the more interesting cases of the past 2008-2009 term. Leading the lunch discussion were Marquette professors Blinka, McChrystal, and Secunda.
Professor Blinka started the lunch discussion [...]

Oct

5

The Long Arm of the Law

Posted by: Chris Donovan | October 5, 2009 | 1 Comment

I want to begin by thanking Dean O’Hear and Marquette University Law School for the opportunity to be October 2009’s “Alum Blogger of the Month.”
Roman Polanksi, a famous director of movies such as Chinatown and The Pianist, was recently arrested in Switzerland 32 years after he fled the United States after pleading guilty to a [...]

Oct

4

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Reversing a Liddell Progress on Crack Sentencing

Posted by: Michael M. O'Hear | October 4, 2009 | 1 Comment

The Seventh Circuit continues to struggle with the question of what it means for the federal sentencing guidelines to be “advisory.”  In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the then-mandatory guidelines system violated the Sixth Amendment.  The Court corrected the constitutional problem by converting the guidelines from mandatory to advisory.  Then, [...]

keep looking »