Ralph Armstrong spent almost 30 years in prison before a new trial was ordered in his murder-rape case, which was later dismissed. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Armstrong can pursue his civil lawsuit against the prosecutor and crime lab techs, accused of destroying evidence in bad faith.
Recent cases have led attorneys and courts to focus on obstreperous conduct during the discovery process. This article identifies the intersection between the discovery rules and the rules of professional responsibility and then focuses specifically on how professional responsibility applies to the deposition process – from noticing the deposition, to preparing the witness, to taking and defending the deposition, to post-deposition practices.
Feb. 4, 2015 – “They’re human beings and we have laws to protect against rape, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.” Dennis McBride, a trial attorney with the Milwaukee office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, doesn’t mince words when it comes to protecting all workers, even those who are undocumented, from employer abuse.
Even with the improvement of breath-test technology, concerns remain about the reliability of preliminary breath test (PBT) results. Thus, the Wisconsin Legislature and Supreme Court have erected barriers to using the results at trial as evidence of defendants’ intoxication. Recent court decisions provide guidance when litigating these matters.
A prosecutor in Portage County elicited a promise from the jury during voir dire to convict if the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was driving with a prohibited alcohol concentration. Recently, a state appeals court ruled the pro mise did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial.