Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Full(er) Disclosure: Wisconsin Invigorates the Brady Rule

Post author:Daniel D. Blinka
Post published:March 13, 2019
Post category:Constitutional Law Criminal Law & Process Public Wisconsin Criminal Law & Process Wisconsin Supreme Court

Rugby player hiding ball under his shirt A Warren Court cornerstone has been “remastered and upgraded,” as they say, by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a case that has riled the waters nationally. In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the Warren Court held that prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. No hiding the ball. Over fifty years of case law, however, has occluded the rule with sundry conditions and qualifications that obscure its modest disclosure provision. More time is spent describing the ball than looking for it.

In State v. Wayerski (2019 WI 11), the Wisconsin Supreme Court scraped off Brady’s barnacles, overruled fifty years of precedent, and held that prosecutors must provide the defense with any information that is exculpatory or impeaching — even if the defense could have found it as easily as the prosecutor.

3L Shannon Strombom Wins State Bar Outstanding Public Interest Law Student of Year Award

Post author:Angela Schultz
Post published:March 5, 2019
Post category:Immigration Law Legal Profession Marquette Law School Poverty & Law Public

head shot of Shannon Strombom Shannon Strombom (3L) has been chosen as the winner of the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Outstanding Public Interest Law Student of the Year.

The criteria used to determine a winner of this award includes a demonstrated commitment to working in the public interest, public interest involvement before and during law school, exceptional volunteer work or activism in the community, and a commitment to helping others.

Strombom came to law school with a mission to help others, and she wasted no time getting involved. She started doing pro bono work in her first weeks as a 1L and has performed nearly 250 pro bono hours in seven different pro bono projects including the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinics, Milwaukee Justice Center, Eviction Defense Project, Guardianship Clinic, Domestic Violence Project, U-Visa Project, and Youth Law Day. In other words, if a pro bono project is offered to students, Strombom signs up to do it.

Strombom is also the two-time recipient of a Public Interest Law Society fellowship. She has focused her fellowship work on immigration law, working one summer with Catholic Charities Legal Services for Immigrants and the next summer in the Arlington, Virginia, Immigration Court.

As for her plans after graduation, Strombom plans to build upon past experience and practice immigration law in a government, non-profit or small firm setting. Strombom particularly hopes to focus on family-based immigration law or humanitarian immigration law, such as asylum.

Strombom is an inspiration to us all. We are proud she will soon be a Marquette Lawyer.

Timbs v. Indiana: SCOTUS Hits the Brakes on Major Source of Revenue for States & Municipalities

Post author:Brandon Jubelirer
Post published:March 4, 2019
Post category:Alumni Contributor Constitutional Law Criminal Law & Process Public U.S. Supreme Court

States and municipalities have increasingly relied on fines and forfeitures as a means to raise revenue, and the ability of law enforcement to impose fines and forfeitures for various criminal and civil offenses has largely gone unchecked by the federal government until recently. The United States Supreme Court’s February 20, 2019 decision in Timbs v. Indiana significantly limits the once broad leeway states and municipalities have enjoyed in imposing fines and forfeitures. Under Timbs, law enforcement must now be additionally cautious not to impose fines and forfeitures that are far out of proportion to the gravity of the offense committed.