WE RESPOND TO YOUR NEEDS 414-271-1440
Recent Blog Posts
Understanding Federal Healthcare Fraud
The healthcare sector of the economy is a multi-billion dollar industry that is growing rapidly as a result of scientific advancements and an aging population. On top of this massive growth, the government has laid down complex regulatory and benefits systems over the industry. This combination of large amounts of money and bureaucracy has led some people to develop a new type of crime: healthcare fraud. The general idea behind healthcare fraud is that healthcare providers lie to the government about something in an effort to get paid more than they deserve, but that description does not do justice to the wide array of different things that qualify as healthcare fraud.
Types of Healthcare Fraud
The federal statute on healthcare fraud criminalizes a wide variety of conduct. Someone commits healthcare fraud when they either knowingly attempt to “defraud any healthcare benefit program,” or when they lie in order to get money from a healthcare benefit program. With such broad definitions, many things fall under the law's scope.
Types of Theft in Wisconsin
The law has a reputation for being at times needlessly complex and confusing. It is hard to find somewhere where this reputation is more deserved than the law of theft. At its heart, theft is the act of taking something that belongs to someone else, but the law of theft is much more complicated. It draws distinctions between many different things like theft, robbery and burglary.
The issue is that some of these distinctions are very sensible, but others are just historical accidents. Some of the distinctions arise because of the law's concern that certain types of theft are more dangerous to citizens or society. Others are the result of how the law of theft developed, as a result of arcane distinctions between different courts in medieval England. Fortunately, most of this latter type of distinction has been consolidated into the crime of theft under Wisconsin law.
Disclosing Exculpatory Evidence: When Prosecutors Have to Help the Defendant
The court system of the United States is often described as “adversarial.” This means that there are two sides in criminal cases - the prosecution and the defense - and that each side is representing the interests of their client. The prosecution works to prove a person's guilt on behalf of the government, and the defense works to prove their client's innocence. The idea is that with two competent sides advocating for their positions, the judge will be able to determine the truth.
However, this truth seeking function occasionally merits a break from the adversarial nature of U.S. courts. One important place where this break occurs is when the prosecution discovers exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is beneficial to the defendant in a variety of ways. Under the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland prosecutors have an obligation to disclose that sort of evidence to the other side. A failure to do so can result in a completely new trial in some circumstances.
Attorney-Client Privilege in Wisconsin
Attorneys act as people's representatives in court, often making tactical decisions when there is no time to consult with their client. Additionally, attorneys work with clients to develop overarching legal strategies. In order to do this job well, attorneys need to have a clear picture of all the facts that their client knows, which means they need complete honesty from their clients. For instance, a criminal defense attorney will not be able to develop a strong trial strategy if their client lies about where they were when the crime was committed. In order to foster this complete honesty, Wisconsin law provides clients with attorney-client privilege. This privilege protects clients from being forced to testify about conversations with their attorney, and it affords the same protection for lawyers.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus
The law attempts to provide a variety of protections to people who have been accused of a crime. Before and during a trial, the Constitution conveys numerous rights that are designed to prevent abuses on the part of the criminal justice system. After the trial, a losing defendant is allowed to appeal their case to a higher court if they think the trial court made a mistake. Yet sometimes even with all these protections, courts still make mistakes. When that happens, people may be eligible for a writ of habeas corpus, also known as a habeas petition or simply the Great Writ.
Understanding the Writ
Habeas corpus is an old writ that has been around since the drafting of the Constitution, but is now codified in 28 U.S.C § 2254. The idea behind the writ is that it provides a check on the government, preventing someone from being held without good cause. Essentially, it lets people being held by the government go to court to argue that they are being held illegally.
U.S. Settles Fake Facebook Profile Case
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency recently settled a lawsuit pending against it, Arquiett v. U.S., paying $134,000 to a woman whose photographs the DEA had used to create a fake Facebook profile to carry out drug stings. The DEA acquired the photographs off the woman's cell phone after she was arrested on drug charges. The settlement did not require the government to admit to any wrongdoing, and it prevents the case from going to trial. However, it may still provide an important guidepost for how much respect the federal government should have for people's privacy when it is enforcing the laws, since the Justice Department has now said that it is “mak[ing] clear the necessity of protecting the privacy and safety of third parties in every aspect of our criminal investigations.”
Wisconsin Judge Strikes Down Campaign Finance Law
The law of campaign finance has been in a state of flux over the past few years. The U.S. Supreme Court issued landmark rulings in cases like Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC. Wisconsin in particular has seen a variety of campaign finance-related rulings stemming from a probe into Governor Walker's recall election. Now another case may have important implications for political action committees and other organizations who fall under the regulations of campaign finance law. The decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland removes numerous restrictions on campaign spending and other procedural requirements for certain corporations.
The Law in Question
The suit in question was brought by a pair of related organizations, Wisconsin Right to Life Inc (The Corporation), and The Wisconsin Right to Life PAC (The PAC). The lawsuit challenged a plethora of different campaign finance restrictions in Wisconsin as unconstitutional. Three of the most important rules that were challenged were:
Wisconsin Felony Murder Law
Homicide laws are almost all focused on the intent of the person committing the crime. An intentional killing is treated as more serious than a killing that was merely done recklessly. Yet, there is one area of homicide law where intent is almost totally irrelevant: felony murder. Felony murder is a special type of homicide under Wisconsin law that people may be charged with if they cause someone's death during the commission of a felony, regardless of intent. Defendants convicted of felony murder in Wisconsin can face an extra 15 years in prison on top of their sentence for the original crime.
What Felony Murder Is
Felony murder is an extra crime that exists in order to add severity to instances where a defendant's crime caused the death of another person. However, not all crimes will trigger the felony murder rule. Instead, it must be one of the crimes listed in the Wisconsin felony murder statute. These felonies are:
Understanding What to Do When Federal Investigators Knock
One of the most stressful things that can happen to any business owner is to have a set of federal investigators knock on the door to conduct an investigation into the company. This can come in a couple of forms. Sometimes, it will be a literal knock, investigators showing up without warning to conduct an interview. Other times, the notice of an investigation will come in the form of a subpoena asking for documents from the company, or even just a letter informing the business owner that they or their company is being targeted by investigators.
First Steps
As the owner of the company being targeted by federal investigators, the most important thing to do is to stay calm and stay polite. Panic will not help the situation, and investigators may even take nerves as a sign that they are on the right track. Rudeness can also be problematic since that makes it more difficult to work with the investigation going forward if that turns out to be the best strategy.
Man Foils Robbery with Taser Gun and Is Charged with Felony
People who purchase a gun tend to be aware that there are a variety of laws and other rules surrounding them, such as where the weapon is allowed to be used and how the gun may be carried. Yet, not as many people realized that a similar set of rules apply to other weapons, such as electronic defense weapons like taser guns. A Wisconsin man found that out the hard way when he stopped a robbery at a local bar, only to have prosecutors charge him with a felony.
What Happened
The man in question was at a local neighborhood bar early on a Monday morning. As the bartender was pulling drinks out of the cooler, a masked woman stood up and threatened the bartender with a handgun. The man saw the bartender taking the money out of the register, and stood up to try to help. He pulled out his taser gun and began advancing on the robber. From witness reports, it does not seem like the man actually shocked the robber. Instead, the robber fled upon seeing the taser gun, and was caught by police a few minutes later. While the robber is being charged with armed robbery and disorderly conduct, but she is not the only one charged with a crime. The man is also being charged with a felony because of the taser gun. However, it is not clear whether the district attorney will actually choose to pursue the charges in light of the fact that the man was preventing a robbery.
