The La Crosse County Circuit Court has deemed September "Juror Appreciation" month.  I want to extend my own personal thanks to La Crosse County jurors, since I am most likely the private attorney with the most time spent in jury trials lately. 

According to the La Crosse Tribune, quoting the La Crosse County Clerk of Court. "2,832 people were summoned to serve on 36 jury trials last year in La Crosse County".  The Koula trial (double homicide), La Crosse's 'Trial of the Century', occupied 18 days, making it the longest trial in La Crosse County history.  I was a member of the defense team, along with attorneys Jim Koby and Keith Belzer.  I had another trial prior to Koula which resulted in Not Guilty on all charges.  I have had several trials since Koula, including a three-day trial wherein my client faced 75 years prison and was found Not Guilty of all charges except a  Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct, which I told the jurors he was guilty of.  There was also an OWI 4th Felony that was dismissed outright after a mistrial, an OWI 3rd that was amended to a mere Reckless Driving half-way through the trial, and a Not Guilty verdict on a .22 BAC charge.  These are just the ones that went to trial.  

Indeed, we at Dyer Law Firm, LLC have much to thank La Crosse County jurors for.  The time we spent in trial will only translate into better results for our current clients, and those to come.  Before you hire another attorney for your case, ask him/her when the last time they won a jury trial was.

The rulings are rolling out in DWI cases in Minnesota where motions for suppression are being raised in light of the recent Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") ruling in Missouri vs. McNeely.  The outcomes of these rulings are quite polar, as demonstrated by the two examples below. 

In the first example, an Anoka County case, the defendant's motion is granted, and test evidence is suppressed.  In that case, the positions and reasoning of the defendant seem almost wholesale adopted by the court.  In the second, a Hennepin County case, the motion is denied.  In that case, and the defendant's arguments in favor of suppression are set up and knocked down one by one. 

No doubt these and many other cases will be appealed by the respective parties.  There are many, many more such rulings to follow.  Thankfully, there should be some clarity coming from the Supreme Court of Minnesota.  The Court agreed to expedite Brooks v. Minnesota, No. 12-478 (Order filed April 22, 2013).  Brooks and two other  Minnesota cases (two of which were urine tests) were remanded back to the State of Minnesota by the SCOTUS in light of the ruling in McNeely.  Oral arguments are set to commence on September 11, 2013.  A decision should follow in a couple months.

Three bills have been drafted and proposed to further toughen Wisconsin's repeat OWI penalties.   All three bills are sponsored by Republican Rep. Jim Ott (R) of Mequon.  Ott vociferously advocated the measures at a  hearing before the Wisconsin Assembly's Judiciary Committee last week.

A criminal first-offense for BAC's over .15 is being  pushed.  Also, one of Ott's bills would make all third and fourth-offense OWI convictions felonies.  (Currently, only a fourth offense OWI/PAC committed within 5 years of a prior OWI is a felony).  Another bill would increase the penalty for injuring someone in an OWI accident, raising the minimum jail sentence from 30 days to six months.  The third measure requires at least a 10-year prison sentence for anyone who kills another person while OWI.  The current law has no minimum prison sentence for such cases.

In what some might consider a pretty gutsy move, State Senator Jennifer Shilling (D) spoke out against the measures on the radio (WIZM) this morning, touting the additional millions of dollars in costs projected in order to prosecute and incarcerate the offenders.  I say "gutsy", because OWI is generally a hot button issue for judge's and politicians.   

I will be watching the developments closely.  One thing is for sure, no legislator is proposing (or likely  ever would propose) more lenient OWI sentences.  This is not the first time Ott has proposed additional penalties for OWI offenders.  It is only a matter of time before the penalties increase again.