Search results
21 kwi 1993 · On October 7, 1989, Todd Mitchell, a young black man, instigated an attack against a young white boy. He was subsequently convicted of aggravated battery in the Circuit Court for Kenosha County. According to Wisconsin statute, Mitchell's sentence was increased, because the court found that he had selected his victim based on race.
The Supreme Court's reasoning in Wisconsin v. Mitchell is nuanced and addresses several key legal principles surrounding the First Amendment, the nature of conduct versus speech, the role of motive in criminal sentencing, and the specific societal harms of bias-motivated crimes.
11 cze 1993 · The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed and held that the sentence enhancement did violate Mitchell’s First Amendment rights because it punished offensive thoughts, and the statute was overbroad and therefore unconstitutional.
Mitchell (defendant) was a young black man who, along with a group of friends, beat up a white boy in Wisconsin (plaintiff). Mitchell instigated the attack after viewing a movie in which a white man beat up a black boy, asking his friends, “Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?”
23 kwi 2019 · A case in which the Court vacated the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirming the drunk-driving convictions of petitioner Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious, and remanded the case.
8 lis 2019 · See Brief for the Petitioner at 29–30, Mitchell, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (No. 18-6210); see also Kerr, supra note 49 (describing the implied-consent theory as “an easy way to eliminate Fourth Amendment rights”).
11 cze 1993 · Mitchell argues that we are bound by the Wisconsin Supreme Court's conclusion that the statute punishes bigoted thought and not conduct. There is no doubt that we are bound by a state court's construction of a state statute.
