Latest Case: State v. Mercado (Criminal Law)

Should the Law Prohibit Anti-Fat Discrimination?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb explores the problem of fat discrimination and considers what a law of anti-fat discrimination might look like, and why it could be important. Professor Colb explores the similarities and differences between legally protected characteristics and fatness and expresses optimism that a change in law could persuade some individuals to recognize fat people for the colleagues, students, friends, partners, and neighbors that they are.

Read More

Members-Only Unionism is Lawful and Can Make Sense

SAMUEL ESTREICHER

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher responds to an op-ed by Ron Holland criticizing the recent announcement of a members-only union of 300 Google workers. Professor Estreicher points out several errors and assumptions in Mr. Holland’s piece, and he argues that, in sum, there is no good public policy case for barring or restricting members-only unionism.

Read More

State v. Mercado

Docket: 2018AP002419-CR

Opinion Date: January 20, 2021

Judge: Patience D. Roggensack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief on the basis that the video-recorded forensic interviews of Defendant's victims were inadmissible, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the three video-recorded forensic interviews during Defendant's trial. Defendant was charged with sexually abusing three victims, who were ages four through seven at the time of the assaults. Before trial, the State informed Defendant and the circuit court of its intent to introduce the video recordings of the victims' forensic interviews into evidence. The court allowed the State to introduce the video recordings. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts. The trial court later denied Defendant's motion for postconviction relief. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the video recordings were not admissible. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant forfeited several of his objections to the admissibility of the forensic interviews; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the three video-recorded forensic interviews during Defendant's trial.