Online users
???: Message   

Not to excuse this woman's behavior, but this court has decided that it has no bounds.
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

12/02/2017, 17:16:17

Author Profile Mail author Edit




jsonline.com

High court affirms mom's conviction for swearing at son, without deciding First Amendment issue


Bruce Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel



The
Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday upheld a mother's conviction for
swearing at her son, but without reaching the issue of whether her
speech was protected by the First Amendment.

The court seemed to take keen interest in the case during oral arguments in September and took 50 pages to render its decision.

A
Milwaukee County jury convicted Ginger Breitzman, 44, of child
abuse-intentionally causing harm, child neglect and disorderly conduct.
The last count was for profanely berating and insulting her 14-year-old
son after he burned some popcorn.

The boy had been talking to a friend at the time, who heard the tirade over the phone.

Breitzman,
who was sentenced to six months in jail with release privileges,
appealed the disorderly conduct conviction. She argued her lawyer was
ineffective for not challenging the charge as a violation of her free
speech rights. The state argued her lawyer was not obligated to raise
such a far-fetched theory.

In the end, the Supreme Court agreed with the state and decided Breitzman's attorney was not ineffective.

"Thus,
while this case touches on an interesting issue of free speech law, we
reserve full analysis of what constitutes profane speech and whether
profane speech is otherwise protected as free speech for another day,"
Justice Annette Ziegler wrote for the majority.

RELATED: Schneider: Courts should protect our right to swear

Breitzman
challenged three acts or omissions of her trial attorney. The majority
found the first — failing to raise a First Amendment-based challenge —
was not ineffective because the issue is unsettled law.

Presenting
Breitzman's conduct as reasonable parental discipline during opening
statements was part of a rational trial strategy, as was the attorney's
decision not to object to testimony about non-charged conduct by
Breitzman, the majority found.

Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote a short concurring opinion to make two points.

"Nothing
in the majority opinion should be read as commenting on the merits of
the underlying First Amendment defense," was the first.

The
second was Abrahamson's belief that "the 'unsettled law' doctrine
guiding the determination of ineffective assistance of counsel is not
sufficiently protective of a  defendant's constitutional and statutory
rights to effective counsel."

She urged that courts and lawyers should develop a better standard for measuring adequate representation.











LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message