Earlier this week, we began a discussion about a recent ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The case concerned a young man who was convicted of the sexual assault of a 5-year-old girl in a 2007 incident. On appeal, the defendant argued that police used deception and coercion in order to get him to confess to the crime.
Many people charged with a crime assume that they only need an attorney when/if the case goes to trial, but this isn't true. Even before any charges are filed, law enforcement may try to get a confession out of a suspect using deception and coercion, and suspects need to have someone who can help them understand their rights.
It is not often that a judge presiding over a criminal case will accept "I just didn't know," or "I didn't understand" as a valid reason to uphold an acquittal or to reduce a generally accepted sentencing term. This may be especially true in cases of alleged sex crimes, given that many convictions carry mandatory sentencing terms and one cannot generally argue ignorance with respect to the elements of a sex crime.
When individuals are subject to the terms of parole or probation, failure to abide by those terms can land offenders in jail. In Wisconsin, one of the terms of parole and probation for individuals convicted of sex crimes mandates that they must submit to lie detector tests when these tests are requested.
In our last post, we began a discussion about an interesting and important case that was recently argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It is critical for prosecutors in a DUI case to show that the traffic stop was made lawfully; that is, that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant.
We recently wrote about the acquittal of former Wisconsin Senator Randy Hopper. In the last two months, Hopper was found not guilty in a jury trial on charges of drunk driving. Based on the outcome of that trial, he was also able to beat a charge of refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test.
For those who are pulled over by police for suspicion that they are driving under the influence (DUI), the complicated criminal justice process begins as soon as law enforcement requests a field sobriety test or other chemical testing. In Wisconsin, even refusing to submit to blood or urine testing may result in DUI charges.
Earlier this week, we began a discussion about an important recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Most Wisconsin (non-commercial) drivers are legally allowed to drive if their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is less than 0.08 percent.
We have previously written about the importance of establishing probable cause in DUI traffic stops. If police were not required to establish probable cause, they could pull over drivers for any reason and administer field sobriety and breathalyzer tests just as randomly.
We have previously written that search warrants play a very important role in protecting the rights of criminal suspects. Before police can search a home for evidence of drug crimes or other illegal activity, they must convince a judge that there is probable cause for such a search.