Theft can take many forms, from seemingly minor offenses like shoplifting to major financial crimes involving millions of dollars, high-value real estate, and/or banks or other organizations. While the news often focuses on bank fraud, securities fraud, and other high-profile white collar crimes, another form of theft that is common in Wisconsin is embezzlement. 

Embezzlement Laws in Wisconsin

Embezzlement is typically defined as the theft of money or property by an employee from his or her employer. However, it can also include the theft of property that is placed in one’s trust by someone else, such as a friend or family member. 

By: Attorney Steven McGaver and Law Clerk Ken Baker

An underage drinking ticket in Wisconsin faces a penalty of a fine from $250 to $500 for the first offense. Many students believe that this is the end of their punishment and the consultation of an attorney is not necessary. Moreover, students wrongly think that if their drinking tickets take place off-campus, they are immune from disciplinary action from the University. However, this is not the case. Recently, Universities have become increasingly strict about underage drinking and have started using these drinking tickets as a way to impose additional academic punishments.

According to one university’s student conduct policy, the university “reserves the right to investigate and subsequently take university action for behavior of students in off-campus situations.” Even more surprising to some students is that the university has the right to discipline students because of their actions while studying abroad. Universities have the power to discipline a student in a number of ways including:

By Ray Dall’Osto

Several of my law firm colleagues and I, as well as others in the criminal defense bar in Wisconsin, regularly deal with DNA and other trace forensic evidence. The need for accurate and reliable forensic testing by law enforcement and state crime labs is critical, as our criminal clients’ lives and freedom is at stake. Testing methods, procedures and test results should be subject to independent peer review, common standards and certification. Just as important, forensic evidence testing and expert opinions about the results and what it means should be based on valid scientific and statistical principles, not outmoded theories, junk science or subjective statistics.

Until the Trump Administration, progress was being made towards improving the accuracy and reliability of forensic evidence. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences evaluated the state of forensic science and, shockingly, concluded that many of the forensic evidence techniques commonly used in court in criminal cases actually have no scientific validity, including hair and fiber comparison analysis, and the resulting expert opinions rendered about such.

If you have been arrested and charged with a crime, you may be unsure of your rights, the legal options available to you, and the next steps you should take. In these cases, it is essential to have a legal advocate on your side to protect your rights and advise you of your options for defense. However, not every criminal defense attorney will be right for you.

Before hiring an attorney, make sure that you are comfortable with the individual and that he or she can provide you with the best legal assistance for your situation.

Consider the following qualities to look for when choosing a defense lawyer:

By James Lewis

This week Circuit Court Judge Angela Sutkiewicz of Sheboygan County considered whether to grant a new trial in the Steven Avery case; a case that captured the country’s attention with the popular Netflix series, “Making a Murderer.” The case centers on the alleged rape and murder of Teresa Halbach. The Netflix mini-series highlights the unusual police investigation and trial that resulted in Avery being convicted and sentenced to life in prison. However, the newest development that is not documented in the mini-series is the court’s denial of Avery’s motion for a new trial. As grounds for the denial, the court held that Avery ignored a procedural rule that requires a defendant to prove new evidence was not available in previous post-conviction motions.

This latest motion for a new trial is Avery’s second attempt to have a jury re-hear the case. Avery’s attorney argued that developments in DNA testing and ballistic forensics constituted “new evidence” under Wisconsin law and required the court to grant a new trial. The court’s denial of Avery’s motion for a new trial addressed three specific claims of “new evidence.”