“It requires little knowledge of human nature to anticipate that those who had long been regarded as an inferior and subject race would, when suddenly raised to the rank of citizenship, be looked upon with jealousy and positive dislike, and that state laws might be enacted or enforced to perpetuate the distinctions that had before existed.”
As ominously foreshadowed by the Supreme Court in 1879, current state and federal laws and practices continuously present disadvantages to people of color. Distant from enslavement and the oppressive nature of the Jim Crow Era, individuals, courts, and politicians, blind to the discrepancies of this nation’s criminal justice system, erroneously believe that the black defendant enjoys the same rights as the white defendant. Ignoring the lack of racial representation and the presence of implicit bias in the courtroom, white judges sit in front of white prosecutors and instruct the white jury on how to handle the black defendant’s case. The black defendant is seldom given a jury that racially represents him or her, and this lack of representation is a product of case precedent, judicial reasoning, and discriminatory practices. In Wisconsin, these discriminatory practices take form in both state and federal jury pooling procedures. As such, the purpose of this article is to draw on the disproportional impact jury pooling practices have on black defendants in circuit and federal district courts in the state of Wisconsin.
An out-of-state college student met a girl on an on-line dating website. After several conversations via text as well as over the phone, the two decided to get together for a date. The date went well and the couple agreed to see each other a second time. Feeling that they had really hit it off, they kept corresponding and developed a strong interest in continuing what seemed like a wonderful relationship.
Knowing that he was facing a huge challenge, Kirk took on a case with not just one, but two chemical test results far above the legal limit. A breath test showed an alcohol concentration of .27, and a blood test showed an alcohol concentration of .28.
In a Northern County in Wisconsin, our client was arrested after allegedly striking a pedestrian on the side of a rural road. Our forensic analysis of the evidence and months of investigation revealed that it was impossible that our client was the cause of the death.
On the last day possible to request a refusal hearing, a client called Kirk advising him that he didn't know what to do or how to respond to the notice. Kirk quickly sprang into action and made sure that the refusal hearing request was filed at the last minute.