Milwaukee, WI
Criminal defense Lawyer at Milwaukee, WI
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Appeals, Family
OUTCOME: The Court of Appeals decided that there was insufficent evidence of racial discrimination.
This was a first-degree intentional homicide case. The issue before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was whether the prosecutor struck a juror from the voir dire jury panel for racially discriminatory re ... asons, known as a Batson violation.
OUTCOME: The charges were dismissed.
The client was charged with sexual assault of a child. I retained the services of a forensic psychologist to review the case and prepare a report. The report detailed defects in the police investigatio ... n. After receiving the report, I filed a motion, with the report attached, for psychological and medical records of the alleged victim.
OUTCOME: The trial court's decision was affirmed.
Did the trial court err when it decided to not suppress the defendant's confession to the police?
OUTCOME: The client was found not guilty, August 11, 2016.
The client was charged with attempted armed robbery in Milwaukee County. The victim identified the client from a photo array. At the jury trial, the victim admitted on cross examination by Attorney Bon ... neson that he only saw the robber's face for a second.
OUTCOME: The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the police search was constitutionally valid.
The Court of Appeals was required to decide if the warrantless police search of the defendant's residence was constitutionally permissible.
OUTCOME: The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the defendant's right to remain silent had been violated.
In this case, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals had to decide whether law enforcement officers violated a defendant's Miranda rights when they continued questioning him after he was Mirandized.
OUTCOME: The exclusion of minors from the jury trial was proper.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals was required to decide whether the circuit court properly excluded minors from a felony sexual assault jury trial.
OUTCOME: The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that the omission did not prevent the county from pursuing the termination of parental rights against the parents.
In this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had to decide whether a failure of a CHIPS dispositional order, that did not itemize the services that the county was required to provide to the parents, preve ... nted the county from pursuing a termination of parental rights against the parents.
OUTCOME: The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the no-knock search warrant had been properly executed.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals was required to decide whether the police had properly executed no-knock search warrant at an alleged drug house.
OUTCOME: The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the hearsay statement would not be admitted at the trial.
In this homicide case, the prosecutor attempted to admit at the jury trial an incriminating statement by an alleged accomplice even though the defendant denied the accomplice's assertions.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
