Winning a trial is tough. The preparation. The study. The hours of thinking how you’re going to corner that troublesome witness no matter what he pulls. But nailing two trials back to back in two weeks? You have to do one case, then switch gears and pull off the second one. This week we did just that. Last week it was a criminal case. This week it was a bitter guardianship. In both cases, BadgerLawyer’s client’s came out on top.
If you need help with court, don’t go alone. Bring a team of experienced lawyers who can set you up for success. We’ll be glad to help.
This week the attorneys at Badger Lawyer went to trial on behalf of a client who was charged with two criminal misdemeanor counts of Disorderly Conduct. Attorney Dan Norland took the lead on the case. After a one-day trial the jury deliberated for less than an hour. The verdict? NOT GUILTY on BOTH counts. There’s nothing quite like seeing the weight come off of a client’s shoulder when they are vindicated.
At Badger Lawyer, we aren’t afraid to take cases to trial. We aren’t afraid to work hard on behalf of our clients. If you have been charged with a crime, come talk to us. Who, knows? The next victory we post may be yours.
Suppression hearings are notoriously difficult to win. Suppression exists as a way of protecting people’s constitutional rights. The idea is that the police don’t get to use evidence against someone if they violated the person’s rights in order to get it. The problem is, once the police have evidence, it usually shows the person has committed a crime. While the purpose of suppression is to protect our freedom by keeping the police within the law, in practice it involves asking a court to throw out charges when the evidence shows the accused to be guilty. As you can imagine, most courts are not sympathetic to that argument. Many lawyers won’t even bother to file the motion.
Not us. At Badger Lawyer, we evaluate every police report for signs that our clients rights were violated, and fight for suppression when they were. This month alone, our lawyers identified constitutional violations in two cases, and took them to court. By the end of the month, both cases had been dismissed and all charges dropped. Both cases involved the police detaining individuals in their vehicles and then searching the vehicles on just a “hunch” that there was something else going on. We brought these cases to court and showed how the constitution does not allow police to search people based on a hunch. Both courts ultimately agreed, and the cases were dismissed.
Here is an interesting link that dares to say something very politically incorrect: that maybe no fault divorce isn’t such a good thing. No fault divorce means anyone can walk away from their marital contract for any reason or no reason at all. There doesn’t have to be any “breach of contract” like infidelity or abuse. Now I don’t think anybody should be trapped in a bad marriage, but at the same time I think people shouldn’t be able to ditch their spouse and kids on a whim. I believe that the system of no fault, with it’s lack of accountability, goes too far. If one spouse cheats and the other files for divorce, the innocent spouse, who happens to earn more money, shouldn’t have to pay alimony to the cheater, right? If you breach the marriage contract by cheating, why do you deserve income equalization? It’s more complicated than that, I know, and I am certainly not talking about not paying child support — kids are always the innocent ones in these situations — but I am committed to the idea that accountability should be part of the process.
The Supreme Court today significantly restricted the police protocol most of you know as “my rights.” You rights, also known as your Miranda rights, stem from the 1960s case that said that police had to give some kind of warning before engaging in custodial interrogation (asking questions after arrest). Since then, “You have a right to remain silent” has become part of our national culture.
Today, though, the Supreme Court changed the dynamic. The cops still have to read you your rights, but you have to speak up if you want to use them. If you want to remain silent, you have to speak up and tell the officers that you want to be silent and you want a lawyer. Otherwise, police violation of your rights may not do you any good in court.
If you want to read the decision, you can find it here.
Meanwhile, please remember, when the police tell you you don’t have to talk and whatever you say will be used against you, THEY MEAN IT. It is really better to “invoke” your rights by saying you want a lawyer and don’t want to answer questions. They may threaten to put you in jail if you don’t talk, and they may take you to jail for a day or two, but that is a small price to pay to save yourself from much worse consequences — criminal convictions and possible prison.
Good lovin’ gone bad — it happens, and sometimes it flames out with red and blue lights. It doesn’t help when there’s a meddling mother-in-law involved, either. This case was a classic he said-she said involving a couple on the verge of a divorce, with a little help from people who didn’t realize 9-1-1 still records when you are on hold. In the end, the defendant was found not guilty in 30 minutes in a day long trial.
Here’s an insightful article about selecting a divorce lawyer.
I was recently asked the above question. The answer is… it depends. Every situation is different, so there is no one size fits all answer. Generally, though, SSDI is social security disability income. It is directly tied to a person’s income and is considered income for the purpose of establishing a support order. To the extent that the SSDI recipient’s children also receive benefits, there is a provision at DCF 150.03(5) that addresses giving the payer credit for those payments. SSI, on the other hand, refers to supplemental security income. It is a form of public assistance and is not income under Wis.Stats s.49.96. As such, it is not considered income for the purpose of setting support. Other types of benefits (VA, State) have to be evaluated separately.
People think if they talk to the cops, they can help themselves out, especially if they are innocent.
You know your rights by heart. So you know “Anything you say can and will be used against you.” They don’t say “Anything you say will be used fairly to decide if you are innocent.”
If you want to know what “Used against you” really means, and if you want to see why you should never talk to cops, watch these two Videos:
Never Talk To The Cops, Part I
Never Talk To The Cops, Part II
Why do you like sex offender laws? So you can get on the internet and make sure you aren’t moving to a neighborhood that has sexual predators, right? Well, sorry, the law won’t help you anymore. Last year, people who touched someone on the butt while dancing in a bar got ordered to register. Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that some kids who did nothing sexual at all had to register. State v. James W. Smith, 2010 WI 16. Smith was just a drug case where a 17 year old was involved in a drug case.
How does it protect your kids for a person to be on the list if they aren’t a sex offender? It doesn’t, but it does guarantee that this one kid, who did something stupid, will never get the chance to grow up and fly right. He’ll never get an apartment. Won’t be able to have contact with kids. Won’t be able to get a job. He’ll have no choice but to commit more crime. Way to go criminal justice system.
The sex offender registry only protects you if the people on the registry really are sex offenders. If you dilute the list with common criminals, you won’t be able to tell the misguided from the dangerous. And uncertainty never helps you make a good decision.