Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Sheriff Clarke says DA 'refuses' to charge man with threatening Vicki McKenna.

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Sheriff Clarke says DA 'refuses' to charge man with threatening Vicki McKenna.

    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/149868425.html
    Quote Originally Posted by B. Vielmetti, MJS blogger
    According to Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., the remarks were anything but romantic. They in fact were death threats, some very offensive and detailed threats, Clarke says. One ending remark that can be printed in this blog, was "I love this country and hate its citizens."

    In an unusual court filing, Clarke asked a judge to permit him to directly charge Demeuse with a crime, saying District Attorney John Chisholm "refuses to issue a criminal complaint" against the man.
    It will be interesting to hear the rest of this story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisc. Stats.
    968.02(3) If a district attorney refuses or is unavailable to issue a complaint, a circuit judge may permit the filing of a complaint, if the judge finds there is probable cause to believe that the person to be charged has committed an offense after conducting a hearing. If the district attorney has refused to issue a complaint, he or she shall be informed of the hearing and may attend. The hearing shall be ex parte without the right of cross-examination.
    The Annotations are intresting.

    Viki McKenna has been a stalwart friend of the RKABA.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    It will be interesting to see if the decision presented by State v Douglas D. enters into the fray.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stoughton, WI
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    It will be interesting to see if the decision presented by State v Douglas D. enters into the fray.
    Can you give a quick recap on what that is?

  4. #4
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/D...ml&seqNo=17531
    1 JON P. WILCOX, J. This is a review of a court of appeals decision, In the Interest of Douglas D.: State v. Douglas D., No. 99-1767-FT, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 1999), which affirmed a judgment by the Circuit Court for Oconto County, Judge Richard D. Delforge. The circuit court found that the content of an eighth-grade creative writing assignment authored by the petitioner, Douglas D. (Douglas), a minor, constituted a threat against Douglas's English teacher. Based on this finding, the court adjudicated Douglas delinquent for violating the disorderly conduct statute, Wis. Stat. 947.01 (1997-98).
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 05-03-2012 at 11:13 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    No. 99-1767



    STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT



    FILED



    MAY 16, 2001



    Cornelia G. Clark

    Clerk of Supreme Court

    Madison, WI















    In the Interest of Douglas D.,

    a person Under the Age of 17:



    State of Wisconsin,



    Petitioner-Respondent,



    v.



    Douglas D.,



    Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.







    REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Reversed.



    1 JON P. WILCOX, J. This is a review of a court of appeals decision, In the Interest of Douglas D.: State v. Douglas D., No. 99-1767-FT, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 1999), which affirmed a judgment by the Circuit Court for Oconto County, Judge Richard D. Delforge. The circuit court found that the content of an eighth-grade creative writing assignment authored by the petitioner, Douglas D. (Douglas), a minor, constituted a threat against Douglas's English teacher. Based on this finding, the court adjudicated Douglas delinquent for violating the disorderly conduct statute, Wis. Stat. 947.01 (1997-98).[1]

    2 Douglas now petitions this court to reverse the court of appeals decision, which affirmed his delinquency adjudication. In doing so, he presents two issues for review: (1) Can the disorderly conduct statute be construed to criminalize purely written speech, even if the speech does not cause a disturbance? (2) If so, is his speech protected by the First Amendment,[2] thus barring the State from prosecuting him for disorderly conduct?

    3 We conclude that purely written speech, even written speech that fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct as defined by 947.01; however, because Douglas's speech falls within the protection of the First Amendment, the State nonetheless is barred from prosecuting Douglas for disorderly conduct. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    I am guessing the line of reasoning is the same as those judges who have blocked voter ID law. Vikki is a constitutionalist originalist, I presume, like me and the DA allowed his political views to trumph justice. Let me see.. he must be a liberal Democrat (generally speaking) who hates the likes of us and Vikki.
    Last edited by Law abider; 05-04-2012 at 05:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •