Seventh Circuit Week in Review

The Seventh Circuit had two new opinions in criminal cases this week, with the government winning both.  (Since I started this Week in Review series three weeks ago, the government has gone 10-0 — an even better run than the Tennessee Titans have been enjoying.  Let’s hope the Packers don’t have the U.S. Department of Justice coming up on their schedule!) 

In United States v. Anderson (No. 07-3654), the court considered a bank robber’s request for appointment of an expert to evaluate his mental health.  The district court had denied the request, and the Seventh Circuit (per Judge Posner) affirmed.  Normally, we think of mental health evaluations in connection with the insanity defense or determinations of competency to stand trial, but Anderson wanted an expert to help him advance a sentencing argument, specifically, that he suffered from diminished mental capacity at the time of his bank robbery.  (And the fact that he did rob a bank provides prima facie evidence of diminished capacity: bank robbers are successfully apprehended at a much higher rate than most other criminals.  As I tell my students, if you want to steal money, there are a lot smarter ways to do it than to rob a bank!) 

Continue ReadingSeventh Circuit Week in Review

Wisconsin Supreme Court Accepts State v. Hoppe for Review, on Plea Colloquy Issues

Supreme Court sealBeginning with this post, I will report here when the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepts new cases for review. I invite your comments.

Last week the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted to accept State v. Hoppe for review.  The issue presented, according the court’s press release, is “the extent to which a judge may rely on the contents of a plea questionnaire and waiver of rights form” in lieu of questioning the defendant on the record.  

Continue ReadingWisconsin Supreme Court Accepts State v. Hoppe for Review, on Plea Colloquy Issues

When Does the Habeas Statute of Limitations Begin to Run?

The Supreme Court hears argument today in the case of Jimenez v. Quarterman (No. 07-6994).  The case requires the Court to determine what triggers the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus claims.  Congress imposed the one-year limitation in 1996, hoping to diminish the number and success of challenges in federal court to state convictions.  The statute, in pertinent part, provides that the one-year clock for filing a federal claim begins to run on “the date on which the [state] judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”  This may seem straightforward enough, but Jimenez’s case highlights an ambiguity.  

Continue ReadingWhen Does the Habeas Statute of Limitations Begin to Run?