orders dated Sept. 22, 2015 and October 1, 2015. ¶ 150. Without providing an explanation for the court's acceptance or denial of amicus briefs, we provide no guidance to lawyers and other interested persons wishing to file amicus briefs in future cases. The court should, in my opinion, take a more expansive view toward granting motions to file amicus briefs. f 151. For the reasons set forth, I concur and write separately. 1 See Ryan J. Reilly, Eric Holder Warns of Risks in 'Moneyballing' Criminal Justice, Huffington Post (11:28 AM Aug. 1, 2014), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/01/eric-holder-moneyball-criminal-justice_n_5641420.html. Wisconsin law also recognizes the need for individualized sentences. See State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶ 48, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197 (<HOLDING>). University of Wisconsin Law Professor Cecelia
recognizing our jurisprudence in this area has been somewhat inconsistent and confusing holding that suspicion must be individualized holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry recognizing that individualized sentencing has long been a cornerstone to wisconsins criminal justice jurisprudence recognizing that the rule of fundamental error applies when substantial justice has not been done