In the matter of the guardianship and protective placement of Aaron B.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Sept. 15, 2009. Appeal No. 2008AP2653

Ultimately, the hearing on the remaining issues in Margaret’s motion and the Watts hearing was held over the course of two days, on October 21 and October 28, 2008. During the hearing, Margaret testified about Aaron’s need for care and her beliefs concerning the proper funding for that care. Testimony and documentation from Margaret contained detailed examples of Aaron’s violent rages:

• Aaron refused to go up some stairs in a group home. When a staff member went to physically move him, Aaron hit the staff member in the face.
• When a shirt had not been washed as promised, Aaron said he was angry; the staff member walked away. In response, Aaron threw a television set and had to be restrained.
• While living in Margaret’s home, Aaron attempted to use a knife on himself, turned over a bookcase, and ran into the street. He was taken to the Milwaukee County Mental Health Complex.
• While living in Margaret’s home, Aaron broke furniture and dishes, attacked Margaret, ran into the street and fell, hurting himself.
• At times, Aaron is incontinent. At night it takes forty-five minutes to an hour and a half to get him up, take him to the bathroom and change the linen.
• Aaron once tackled Margaret outside on the sidewalk. He pulled out a chunk of her hair. He bit her arm twice and drew blood. Neighbors rescued her. Aaron was taken to the Mental Health Complex.
• Aaron got angry one night. Margaret woke up at 11:30 and he was standing over her bed holding scissors. He said he was thinking about stabbing her because she used a mean voice when she tucked him in.
• A caregiver blocked Aaron from trying to throw himself down some stairs. In response, Aaron bit him.

Margaret testified that based on her concerns for Aaron’s safety, she believed that there needed to be two people to supervise Aaron at all times, paid at a rate she considered necessary to obtain appropriate caregivers, and that the County should pay her for her caregiving services as the needed second person.

Full case is here.

The defendant’s quote is straight of a 1970’s B-movie.

State v. Pegues, Wisconsin Appeals, November 11, 2009.

Pegues contends that statements he made to police at the scene should have been suppressed. The trial court denied Pegues’s pretrial suppression motion.

The court found that police were dispatched to a report of shots being fired and that when Officer Novy arrived, Pegues was slowly walking away from the vehicles, using a four-legged walker.

Novy recognized Pegues from previous contacts. The court found that Novy approached Pegues and asked him words to the effect of what was going on. Before Pegues responded, another officer told Novy that the victim said that Pegues had been shooting at her.

Novy could not see a gun in Pegues’s hands, and he asked Pegues if he had a gun. Pegues replied that he did and it was in his car.

Pegues also told Novy “I tried to shoot the bitch, she won’t leave me alone.”

Pegues was then arrested.

via FindLaw | Cases and Codes.

I have two new posts over at The Shark:

No Barbri girls in Wisconsin: my take on my neighbor’s exemption from the bar. (Read it here)

And,

Pizzas & The Crucifix: the saga of Ave Maria law school. (Read it here)

State of Wisconsin v. DAY

PER CURIAM. The Defendant (Mr. Day) appeals pro se from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, one count of exposing a child to harmful materials, and one count of child enticement. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the judgment and the order. [...]

In his postconviction motion and on appeal, Day challenges various aspects of his trial counsel’s representation. We address his arguments seriatim.

Day contends that his trial counsel rendered deficient performance by failing to impeach L.K. (a 12 year-old) with alleged “inconsistent” testimony as to how much pubic hair Day has. Day argues that at the preliminary hearing, L.K. testified that Day had a lot of pubic hair, but at trial testified that he could not recall a significant amount of pubic hair on Day.

At trial, Day testified that he shaves his pubic region, and explained why. Prior to trial, he also took photographs of himself in jail to demonstrate that his pubic region was shaved. Day contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to have taken the pictures himself to ensure the quality of the images, and for failing to introduce the photographic evidence at trial.

Read the rest of this entry »