If you go ...
What: Wisconsin Supreme Court "Justice on Wheels"
When: 8:45 a.m. Monday, Nov. 5, with cases at 9:30 a.m. and 11 a.m.
Where: Green County Justice Center, 2841 6th St., Monroe
RSVP: (608) 266-1298 or sara.foster@wicourts.gov
MADISON - The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear two cases Nov. 5 in Monroe at the Green County Justice Center, and seats to watch the proceedings are free and open to the public.
This will be the first time in its history the Wisconsin Supreme Court has heard a case in Green County. The visit is part of a "Justice on Wheels" program started in 1993 as a public outreach initiative to bring the state justices to local county courthouses.
Reservations are suggested to secure a seat. There are two cases to choose from, at 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. The court's oral arguments on each will last about an hour.
Before the first case, at 8:45 a.m., Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson will introduce the six members of the court and lead a question-and-answer session.
This will be followed by an awards ceremony for the Supreme Court's essay contest for fifth-graders. The first-place contestant will read their winning essay.
After lunch at Turner Hall with the Green County Bar Association, the justices are giving a presentation for area seniors and taking questions at Behring Senior Center at 2:30 p.m.
STATE V. BEAMON, 9 A.M.
The first case, State v. Beamon, is from Racine.
It began with a report of shots fired at the American Legion Bar on Nov. 19, 2007. Police officers spotted a male suspect who got into a vehicle and drove off. He led police on a chase, then opened his car door and jumped out of the moving vehicle. Police arrested the man, identified as Courtney C. Beamon.
Beamon, now 26 years old, was charged with eight criminal offenses as a repeat offender and convicted on all eight at a jury trial in 2008.
He appealed on only one count, the charge of eluding an officer. He argued the evidence was not sufficient for a conviction based on the instruction the judge gave the jury.
The state countered that the statutory elements of the crime, rather than the jury instruction, should be used to assess whether the burden of proof had been met. The Court of Appeals agreed, upholding the conviction even though it found the jury instruction had been erroneous.
Now Beamon has appealed to the Supreme Court, which will clarify whether reviewing courts should look at the jury instructions or the statutory elements of the crime in handling sufficiency-of-evidence appeals.
OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER v. COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT IV, 11 a.m.
This case addresses whether a lawyer handling an appeal of a criminal conviction must seek permission from the circuit court before accessing, citing or quoting a pre-sentence investigation.
A pre-sentence investigation, or PSI, is a report ordered by the sentencing judge in circuit court. Typically, independent investigators from the Department of Corrections write up the report and make sentencing recommendations after reviewing the defendant's family history, personality, medical history, schooling and more.
These reports are confidential. In this case, the State Public Defender's Office is seeking a ruling that would create a uniform procedure for accessing, citing and quoting the reports in criminal appeals.
The issue arose from a matter involving Michael B. Buchanan, a 43-year-old from Spencer. He pleaded no contest in 2009 in Wood County Circuit Court to first-degree sexual assault of a child and child enticement, both with a dangerous weapon. The charges stem from an incident in 1990.
Prior to sentencing, Buchanan made a motion to strike certain parts of his pre-sentence investigation from the record. The circuit court granted the motion in part.
When Buchanan appealed, his attorney sought permission from the Court of Appeals to quote from the pre-sentence investigation. The motion was granted, but the state argued the circuit court, rather than the Court of Appeals, is the court that must give this permission. The Court of Appeal agreed and directed Buchanan to file his motion in the circuit court.
He instead filed a motion for reconsideration from the Court of Appeals, arguing that no permission is necessary from the circuit court and that the Court of Appeals is creating a "wasteful and pointless process." The Court of Appeals denied the motion.
Now, the Supreme Court will clarify whether post-conviction counsel must seek the circuit court's permission prior to quoting from a pre-sentence investigation in appeals.
This will be the first time in its history the Wisconsin Supreme Court has heard a case in Green County. The visit is part of a "Justice on Wheels" program started in 1993 as a public outreach initiative to bring the state justices to local county courthouses.
Reservations are suggested to secure a seat. There are two cases to choose from, at 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. The court's oral arguments on each will last about an hour.
Before the first case, at 8:45 a.m., Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson will introduce the six members of the court and lead a question-and-answer session.
This will be followed by an awards ceremony for the Supreme Court's essay contest for fifth-graders. The first-place contestant will read their winning essay.
After lunch at Turner Hall with the Green County Bar Association, the justices are giving a presentation for area seniors and taking questions at Behring Senior Center at 2:30 p.m.
STATE V. BEAMON, 9 A.M.
The first case, State v. Beamon, is from Racine.
It began with a report of shots fired at the American Legion Bar on Nov. 19, 2007. Police officers spotted a male suspect who got into a vehicle and drove off. He led police on a chase, then opened his car door and jumped out of the moving vehicle. Police arrested the man, identified as Courtney C. Beamon.
Beamon, now 26 years old, was charged with eight criminal offenses as a repeat offender and convicted on all eight at a jury trial in 2008.
He appealed on only one count, the charge of eluding an officer. He argued the evidence was not sufficient for a conviction based on the instruction the judge gave the jury.
The state countered that the statutory elements of the crime, rather than the jury instruction, should be used to assess whether the burden of proof had been met. The Court of Appeals agreed, upholding the conviction even though it found the jury instruction had been erroneous.
Now Beamon has appealed to the Supreme Court, which will clarify whether reviewing courts should look at the jury instructions or the statutory elements of the crime in handling sufficiency-of-evidence appeals.
OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER v. COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT IV, 11 a.m.
This case addresses whether a lawyer handling an appeal of a criminal conviction must seek permission from the circuit court before accessing, citing or quoting a pre-sentence investigation.
A pre-sentence investigation, or PSI, is a report ordered by the sentencing judge in circuit court. Typically, independent investigators from the Department of Corrections write up the report and make sentencing recommendations after reviewing the defendant's family history, personality, medical history, schooling and more.
These reports are confidential. In this case, the State Public Defender's Office is seeking a ruling that would create a uniform procedure for accessing, citing and quoting the reports in criminal appeals.
The issue arose from a matter involving Michael B. Buchanan, a 43-year-old from Spencer. He pleaded no contest in 2009 in Wood County Circuit Court to first-degree sexual assault of a child and child enticement, both with a dangerous weapon. The charges stem from an incident in 1990.
Prior to sentencing, Buchanan made a motion to strike certain parts of his pre-sentence investigation from the record. The circuit court granted the motion in part.
When Buchanan appealed, his attorney sought permission from the Court of Appeals to quote from the pre-sentence investigation. The motion was granted, but the state argued the circuit court, rather than the Court of Appeals, is the court that must give this permission. The Court of Appeal agreed and directed Buchanan to file his motion in the circuit court.
He instead filed a motion for reconsideration from the Court of Appeals, arguing that no permission is necessary from the circuit court and that the Court of Appeals is creating a "wasteful and pointless process." The Court of Appeals denied the motion.
Now, the Supreme Court will clarify whether post-conviction counsel must seek the circuit court's permission prior to quoting from a pre-sentence investigation in appeals.