Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, given the “quick questioning” rights for a prisoner whose case lasted nearly 4 years – Wisconsin Public Radio News

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin weighs whether the prisoner’s sentence to stamped prison must be rejected, as it took 46 months to complete the process.

During the oral arguments on Tuesday, the judges seemed skeptical, with some suggesting that the State Court of Appeal was wrong when it ordered the sentence to be dropped.

The case before the judges included Louis Ramirez, who is currently serving a 40-year sentence for convicted armed robbery in 1997. On May 5, 2015, Ramirez attacked a corrective employee at the Correctional Institution of Colombia, stabbing him in the head and neck sharpened pencil S

Ramirez was accused of the crime in February 2016, but the case did not go up to 46 months later. He was convicted of the 2019 attack and later filed a request claiming that the delay had violated his constitutional right to a quick process.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeal 4 of the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Ramirez in April 2024, ordering the court court to dismiss the allegations against him. The three judges said it was the most long delay in any fast -paced lawsuit in Wisconsin since 1972. The opinion accuses the “vast majority” of delaying the state, calling it “extreme”.

The Wisconsin Justice Ministry appealed the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and on Tuesday, assistant prosecutor John Flynn told Justis that Ramirez’s constitutional rights were not violated as he did not ask for a quick process until nearly three years in the case. Flynn also claims that Ramirez did not suggest proof that the delays were intended to harm his defense.

“How much is it too much?”

Flynn said that the bigger question was what he called a confusing and “incapacitated” precedent from the State Court of Appeal, which would require prosecutors to explain why the case did not return to court earlier, even if there were valid reasons for delay.

“How much is too much delay?” Flynn said. “How long a valid reason does the state get? This is massively unclear after the court of appeal. “

Ramirez’s lawyer, Jennifer Lor, did not agree and told the counters that the Court of Appeal was right to turn his sentence. She pulled away when Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley asked if Ramirez had been waiting for nearly three years to ask for a quick process, he had to weigh against him.

Lor said Ramirez had been waiting for a long time, but said it was partly due to court hearings to be deferred.

“When we get to that date of the test five or six months after the prior hearing, it is redirected and pushed again,” Lor said. “So, he waits for these trial dates to happen, and they continue to not happen and continue to push back.”

The Ministry of Justice claims that part of the delay is due to the retirement of the district prosecutor, which left prosecutors who cannot be prepared properly. Liberal justice Janet Protasevich, who has been working at the District Prosecutor’s Office of Milwauki County for years, before becoming a judge, has undertaken this claim.

“I expect someone to be able to accelerate and be able to try a case where the facts look relatively simple to me,” Protasiewicz said.

Flynn said the court could hold this specific delay against the state if he wanted, but “should not weigh strongly against the state.”

“This is a reason that is happening because of life and retirement,” Flynn said.

The Court of Appeal issues considered

Other jurors have undertaken the decision of the Court of Appeal of District 4, including his criticism of the lack of a documented court protocol explaining the delay.

Liberal justice Jill Carofski said the judges did not have time to pass through their calendars and outline all the different hearing before them for the court record.

“Do we really want the courts to do?” Carofski asked. “Because if we do this in any case, it will be a huge, huge time for judges’ judges.”

Lor replied, saying that the judges should not share their calendars, but a “simple statement” outlines what dates of the future court will work. Bradley interrupted and said this was already done.

Bradley said the State Court of Appeal made numerous mistakes when it interpreted a 1972 Supreme Court decision, establishing tests for judges when considering whether a person’s right to a quick trial was violated. One of them is the degree of harm with which the defendant is confronted with the delay of the court.

“What prejudices did you suffer from your client?” Bradley said. “He would have been in prison for a very long time, so his interest in freedom was not even involved in this delay.”

Lor said this was true, but Ramirez testified that the waiting accusations against him had caused additional stress and anxiety growing to the level of alleged prejudices against him in the case.

“So, if there is excessive delay, we assume that there were some prejudices,” Lor said. “This is prejudice that cannot always be quantified or demonstrated.”

Carofski told Lohr that he asks the courts to balance factors that cannot be measured.

“I don’t see any prejudice here,” Carofsky said.