April 1, 2009

Sykes Wrongs

Local medium wave radio harlequin Charlie Sykes continues with his comically dissembling "series" examining [sic] selected decisions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Here's what he has to say about State v. Knapp (2003):
Knapp was convicted, but the state Supreme Court overturned that conviction ...
No, Knapp wasn't convicted, so there was no conviction to overturn. At that point, his trial was postponed while the judge (Randy Koschnick) was appealed on a number of evidentiary motions.

Knapp's conviction for homicide — which nobody has ever "overturned" — occurred three years later, and it was based in considerable part on evidence seized from Knapp's brother's apartment, evidence initially suppressed by Judge Randy Koschnick.

Part of the 2003 decision Sykes is referring to dealt with that evidence, which Koschnick ruled to exclude from Knapp's trial. Koschnick was reversed, the evidence was allowed, and Knapp was ultimately found guilty by a jury on the strength of that evidence.

The Knapp court determined that Koschnick's ruling suppressing the evidence seized from the apartment was "clearly erroneous."

Naturally, Sykes doesn't mention any of this, because he's shamelessly and laughably shilling for Randy Koschnick with his own set of "selected cases" chosen from among several thousand.

Charlie Sykes can't be trusted to accurately recite a rudimentary matter of procedure; it's no wonder his portrayal of the substantive legal questions is similarly untrustworthy — or worse.

Nor does Sykes even know the difference between "vacated" and "reversed," and he goes on to repeat his utter lie that the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chose to ignore" the U.S. Supreme Court's 2004 decisions in United States v. Patane and Missouri v. Seibert.

Amazingly, some people actually consider this character a credible source of reliable information (except when he's not, in which case his apologists remind you he's "just an entertainer").

Yep, he's an entertainer alright.

On teh web: State v. Knapp (I & II).


Brett said...

Tee Up:


This so-called Judicial Conservative cannot justify the plain language of his false ad, so he turns to the purpose of the ad. Nice.

Display Name said...

I thought Prof. Esenberg said Sykes was a legal genius.

illusory tenant said...

ignore vb : to refuse to take notice of

Yet Esenberg refuses to acknowledge Sykes's blatant and easily demonstrable dishonesty. It's astonishing.

Display Name said...

Everyone knows that when Sykes isn't telling the truth, he's being an entertainer.