March 30, 2008

CFAF "deemed" criminally inept: Part 8

First, don't miss the very latest installment of

DA Mike Gableman: Real Life Adventures in Crimefighting

Now, nine more cases or, "Lordy, lordy, look who's a Moran."

[Psst. For a secret message to CFAF et al, click me]

32. State v. Booker 2004AP1435-CR

Two appealed convictions for showing porn videos to three girls ages 12, 13, and 14 both upheld by a unanimous opinion from Justice Roggensack, another of the court's most "conservative" judges. The "liberal" Chief Justice concurs but Justice Butler doesn't join her opinion, he only joins Roggensack's. CFAF is forced to agree.

33. State v. Brockdorf 2004AP1519-CR

Butler dissented, and joined another dissent by Justice Crooks, along with "traditionalist" Justice Prosser, in a case involving the investigation into a Milwaukee police officer, Brockdorf, and her statements pursuant to a shoplifting arrest that allegedly got a little rough 'n' tumble.

Even more troubling is that the heist was from Kohl's. I loves me some Kohl's. I've picked up a few nice IZOD rayon dress shirts at Kohl's for like 12 bucks. What kind of a shoplifter steals from Kohl's, when all he needs to do is rummage through the 70%-off rack to find such a deal? A lazy one, that's what! He probably deserved a good whack on the side of the head.

Anyway, Butler agreed with the police officer Vanessa Brockdorf that her statements made during an investigation were compelled, and should have been suppressed for that reason. Butler went on to set down a couple of paragraphs on the subject of trust between the public and the police, and how these investigations into rough play by the cops need to be especially careful and rigorous. It's a fair point, especially in this town.

Nevertheless, because he is honest, Butler counts this case "against" himself, despite the fact that the party Butler sides with is an actual law enforcement officer, yet another example of how these rulings contain a number of subtleties that Prof. Esenberg's suggested methodology simply can't take into consideration.

And, because CFAF doesn't challenge a single instance of Butler siding with a defendant, it's happy to agree with this one too.

34. State v. Smith 2004AP2035-CR
35. State v. Tiepelman 2004AP914-CR

And two more. In Smith, Butler and Prosser join the Chief Justice's dissent where the majority upheld a drunk driving conviction in the face of Smith's challenge against a juror where Smith alleged a conflict because the juror worked for the Milwaukee County district attorney's office. Coincidentally, Smith addresses the very question of objective vs. subjective tests that I discussed below.

Butler counts this case "correctly" "against" himself and CFAF rushes to agree.

In Tiepelman, Justice Butler again voted with the court's most "conservative" members to reverse a criminal conviction. Naturally, CFAF agrees, but you'll never hear CFAF or Jessica McBride refer to either Justices Prosser or Wilcox as "pro-criminal" on any particular decision. Ever. Such is cheap partisan hackery.

36. State v. Fonte 2003AP2097-CR

In Fonte, Butler voted with a unanimous court (minus Justice Crooks, who did not participate) to uphold — after the court of appeals reversed — Fonte's conviction for homicide by intoxicated use of a boat. CFAF can't not agree.

37. State v. Dubose 2003AP1690-CR
38. State v. Knapp 2000AP2590-CR

Two cases that have been already discussed in great detail here and elsewhere that there is no need to rehearse at this point, suffice to say that Butler voted to reverse a conviction in Dubose, and wrote to exclude evidence in Knapp where that evidence was the product of a deliberate withholding of the constitutionally guaranteed Miranda warning.

Contrary to uninformed opinion, there was anything but clear guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court in Knapp, and the two cases that local radio howler/monkey Charlie Sykes says Butler "ignored," Butler actually spent 46 pages of the opinion addressing. Because, you know, if you write anything less than 47 pages discussing two U.S. Supreme Court decisions in excruciating detail, Sykes gets to count that as "ignoring."

I pause to reflect one more time — Why does anyone take any of these right-wing bozos seriously at all, with outright lies like that?

In any event, Butler, gentleman that he is, nevertheless counts both cases "against" himself in deference to the stupid GOP games of CFAF, and CFAF certainly isn't going to raise any question against that.

Another pause to reflect. How is it that CFAF can agree with Butler's list in so many instances, and in every single instance where CFAF disagrees with Butler's list, CFAF is dead wrong, yet CFAF's figure is nearly 40 percentage points away from the truth?

Because, dear reader, CFAF originally extracted the number from its balloon knot pucker hole, that's why, and its pathetic attempt to justify it in the meantime is a stone flat-out Opéra Bouffe of lies, screw-ups, and general boneheadedness.

39. State v. Love 2003AP2255

This is a good one. CFAF just arbitrarily removes this from the list, saying, "Not Classified Criminal By The Court." Notice the docket number beside the case name doesn't contain the holy -CR suffix. Yes, and? Again, did CFAF even care to read State v. Love? Because it is a criminal case. Last I checked, robbery at gunpoint was a crime. And ineffective assistance of counsel is often a legitimate means to attempt challenging a conviction. And postconviction motions are a regular component of criminal cases. Even CFAF could tell if they looked, because it says postconviction motion. There are no convictions in any types of cases other than criminal cases.

Hmm, let's see, what other features are there of criminal proceedings. Jury trials? Check. Evidentiary hearings? Check. Reversals of the court of appeals that remand a case back to the circuit court for a hearing on the newly discovered evidence? Check. All of which figure prominently in State v. Love. In fact, the latter is the disposition: The defendant, says Justice Butler, writing for the majority, at least deserves a hearing — but that's all, just a hearing — on this newly discovered evidence. So ordered.

Now I'll admit, I can't tell you why the case number doesn't contain the -CR suffix. Maybe it has something to do with a reference to the court of appeals "summary disposition" in the very first sentence. Is that a term of art that alerted somebody working in the clerk of courts' office to file the case a certain way? I have no idea, to be honest. Maybe somebody can fill me in.

But, here's the deal. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Butler is being attacked, baselessly, on his criminal record, and now here are these buffoons insisting that Butler cannot defend himself against their attacks by making reference to the very cases they are using to attack him.

As Larry David said to Richard Lewis, "What are you, nuts?" Or, as the kids say, "Teh stupidz! It Burns!!!11!"

Oh well, as Jessica McBride says, even if you disagree with this one case it doesn't affect the overall number. No biggie; Tee Hee!


Well how about if you disagree — and demonstrate why, with proof — with about 100% of CFAF's idiotically incorrect classifications, how does that affect the overall number?

Lordy, lordy almighty god help us all. Wonder why I'm amazed that an actual professor of law continues to laud McBride's work, which obtained the identical result as did CFAF's? There's another reason. I've lost count of those reasons at this point.

40. State v. Moran 2003AP561-CR

Another classic CFAF boner.

CFAF disputes this one: "deems w/ Criminal." Yes, it's true, you, the people, through your elected representatives in the State legislature, are "criminals." Okay, okay, wise guy. Never mind Glenn Grothman then.

Moran is a unanimous decision authored by Justice Prosser with two concurrences by Wilcox and Roggensack dealing with a postsentencing motion to obtain DNA evidence under a due process of law theory. The unanimous court addresses Moran's motion in light of a number of statutes passed by the legislature seven years after the events leading to the defendant's conviction.

In short, the unanimous court is directly following the commands of the legislature in granting the motion. Crimefighting superhero Mike Gableman, speaking in that strange half sing-song half vacuous-GOP-talking-point-reciting voice, constantly accuses Butler of "legislating from the bench" and imposing his personal preferences on the will of the people and blah blah blah. Has Gableman ever supported any of this? Of course not. Can it be easily rebutted, with examples? Of course it can. Just read State v. Moran.

As for the result in Moran itself, certainly even a conservative Republican would appreciate having the opportunity to present new evidence that came to light not only through recent technology but through more recently passed legislation by the peoples' representatives? Or do conservative Republicans really place such absolute blind faith in the government and its police force and prosecutors? Because if they do, then conservative Republicans have sure changed their attitudes toward the government since I was just a little clump of DNA meself.


To part 9 ...


Anonymous said...

How can it be that even after you have expended countless hours of sweat and tears (albeit with occasional pauses to reflect on the sad hilarity of all this) that nobody from the Gabelman camp, nor the learned Prof.Esenberg, nor Jessica "Queen of literary prose" McBride nor CFAF reprersentatives have even posted a comment?
Could it be that they have finally realized that by your research, by actually READING the cases (!)that their slimy, reprehensible accusations and assertions cannot stand up to the evidence, and that their initial Enthusiasm has been Curbed??

illusory tenant said...

"their initial Enthusiasm has been Curbed??"


Well, I don't know, but in today's Journal-Sentinel, Stacy Forster is still making reference to CFAF's ad, and at least giving the impression that CFAF's figure is something other than complete and utter horseshit.

And, by mentioning the other campaign's conclusion, suggesting that both figures are the subject of fair comparison.

Which just goes to show that misplaced slavery to ideals of objective journalism can produce the same untruthful results as blinkered devotion to cheapjack partisan lies masquerading as "journalism."

William Tyroler said...

State v. Love is a sec. 974.06 appeal -- our state's equivalent of habeas attack. (It's an analog, if you want to get a bit geeky, of 28 USC sec. 2255 for federal convicts.) Because it is habeas in all but name it is technically considered "civil" litigation, and thus doesn't get a "CR" suffix. Of course, the case is still criminal. Omitting the suffix doesn't magically get the defendant-appellant sprung.

You're right: McBride leaves it out of her McBride-Esenberg Pro-Criminal Jurisprudential Quotient. (MEPCJQ? Somebody better work on that acronym. MJQ? Better, but easily confused with the Modern Jazz Quartet and might raise a copyright issue.)

There's absolutely no justification for its omission from McBride's "study." She simply didn't know about this little quirk in our classification system. Not that I'd expect a layperson to know. Then again, I wouldn't expect a layperson to think she can "study" a very complex problem like this at the drop of a hat. Not even the MJQ designer herself.

But here we are, and so her defenders are left to explain why her data set has been arbitrarily truncated. Ignorance ain't the best excuse, so "cleanest way to identify the data" becomes the rallying cry. Well, no: if you're measuring activity in criminal cases then you don't have the fricking right to say some are included, some aren't just because of the way they're numbered. Just one more MJQ methodological defect among many.

illusory tenant said...

Because it is habeas in all but name it is technically considered "civil" litigation, and thus doesn't get a "CR" suffix.

Aha. Thank you, sir.

Incidentally, Django is one of my favorite John Lewis tunes, and as a matter of fact, I was playing it for one of my piano students just this afternoon.

Mpeterson said...

Ahh, nice work. I'm now officially a groupie.