Article I, §1 Equality; inherent rights. Section 1. [As amended Nov. 1982 and April 1986] All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982; 1983 J.R. 40, 1985 J.R. 21, vote April 1986]
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The fact that there is no mandatory release date for persons convicted of 1st degree murder as there is for other crimes does not amount to denial of equal protection. Bies v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 322, 193 N.W.2d 46.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Legislative classifications violate equal protection only if they are irrational or arbitrary. Any reasonable basis for the classification validates the statute. There is a five point test to determine reasonableness. Omernik v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 6, 218 N.W.2d 734 (1974).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. There is a meaningful distinction between governmental employees and nongovernmental employees. The statutory strike ban imposed on public employees is based upon a valid classification and the legislation creating it is not unconstitutionally deny protection. Hortonville Education Association v. Joint School District No. 1, 66 Wis. 2d 469, 225 N.W.2d 658.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The statutory distinction between parolees out of state under s. 57.13 [now s. 304.13] and absconding parolees, denying extradition to the former but not the latter, is a constitutionally valid classification. State ex rel. Niederer v. Cady, 72 Wis. 2d 311, 240 N.W.2d 626.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. In order for a female prostitute to avoid prosecution upon equal protection grounds, it must be shown that the failure to prosecute male patrons was selective, persistent, discriminatory, and without justifiable prosecutorial discretion. State v. Johnson, 74 Wis. 2d 169, 246 N.W.2d 503.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Equal protection does not require symmetry in probation and parole systems. State v. Aderhold, 91 Wis. 2d 306, 284 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1979).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Discriminatory prosecution is discussed. Sears v. State, 94 Wis. 2d 128, 287 N.W.2d 785 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A gender-based rule must serve important governmental objectives and the means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. The common law doctrine of necessaries does not deny equal protection. Marshfield Clinic v. Discher, 105 Wis. 2d 506, 314 N.W.2d 326 (1982).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. It does not violate equal protection to classify employees according to retirement date for purposes of pension benefits. Bence v. Milwaukee, 107 Wis. 2d 469, 320 N.W.2d 199 (1982).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A grandfather clause granting a perpetual exception from police power regulation for certain persons for purely economic reasons denied equal protection. Wisconsin Wine & Spirit Institute v. Ley, 141 Wis. 2d 958, 416 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1987).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A prostitution raid focusing only on female participants amounts to selective prosecution in violation of equal protection. State v. McCollum, 159 Wis. 2d 184, 464 N.W.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1990).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A prisoner who is a defendant in a civil tort action is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard. If no liberty interest is at stake there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel, and there is a rebuttable presumption against such appointment. Piper v. Popp, 167 Wis. 2d 633, 482 N.W.2d 353 (1992).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. To do so constitutes practicing law without a license in violation of s. 757.30 and voids the appeal. Requiring a lawyer to represent a corporation in filing the notice does not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Jadair Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 209 Wis. 2d 187, 561 N.W.2d 718 (1997), 95-1946.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. "Selective prosecution" when referring to the failure to prosecute all known lawbreakers has no standing in equal protection law. Only "selective prosecution" when referring to the decision to prosecute in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right gives rise to an actionable right under the constitution. County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97-0642.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The state and federal constitutions provide identical procedural due process and equal protection safeguards. County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97-0642.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A prosecutor's exercise of selectivity in enforcement does not create a constitutional violation. A violation occurs when there is persistent selective and intentional discrimination in the enforcement of a statute in the absence of a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion. A defendant has the initial burden to present a prima facie showing of discriminatory prosecution before being entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Kramer, 2001 WI 132, 248 Wis. 2d 1009, 637 N.W.2d 35, 99-2580.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. For a prima facia case of selective prosecution, a defendant must show a discriminatory effect, that he or she has been singled out for prosecution while others similarly situated have not, and a discriminatory purpose, that the prosecutor's selection was based on an impermissible consideration such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. In cases involving solitary prosecutions, a defendant may also show that the government's discriminatory selection for prosecution is based on a desire to prevent the exercise of constitutional rights or is motivated by personal vindictiveness. State v. Kramer, 2001 WI 132, 248 Wis. 2d 1009, 637 N.W.2d 35, 99-2580.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Wausau's restaurant smoking ban that provided differential treatment of restaurants and private clubs did not violate equal protection as there is a rational basis for the differential treatment. Absent the ordinance's narrow definition of private clubs as non-profit organizations controlled by their members, ordinary for-profit restaurants seeking the public's patronage would be able to avoid enforcement of the smoking ban by creating the illusion of private clubs. The ordinance's method of distinguishing private clubs from other restaurants seeks to protect the greatest number of restaurant patrons while preserving the right to associate in truly private clubs that are not open to the public. City of Wausau v. Jusufi, 2009 WI App 17, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 763 N.W.2d 201, 08-1107.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Although counties may charge reasonable fees for the use of facilities in their county parks, they may not charge such fees only to out-of-state residents while allowing all Wisconsin residents to utilize such facilities free of charge simply because ORAP or ORAP-200 funds are involved. Such action would create an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction based on residence and unconstitutionally deny residents of other states equal protection of the laws. 60 Atty. Gen. 18.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A requirement that deputy sheriffs and police officers be citizens does not deny equal protection to resident aliens. 68 Atty. Gen. 61.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Classifications by gender must serve important government objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A citizenship requirement for public teachers in New York did not violate equal protection. Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A Massachusetts civil service preference for veterans did not deny equal protection to women. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A worker's compensation law that required men, but not women, to prove disability or dependence on a deceased spouse's earnings violated equal protection. Wengler v. Druggists Mutual Ins. Co. 446 U.S. 142 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Racial classification did not violate equal protection clause. Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A statutory rape law applicable only to males had "fair and substantial relationship" to legitimate state ends. Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court, 450 U.S. 464 (1981).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A state university open only to women violated equal protection. Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A layoff plan giving preference on the basis of race to accomplish affirmative action goals was not sufficiently narrowly tailored and, therefore, violated equal protection. Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Strict scrutiny was the proper standard of review for an equal protection challenge to a California corrections policy of racially segregating prisoners in double cells each time they enter a new correctional facility. All racial classifications imposed by government must be analyzed under strict scrutiny even when they may be said to burden or benefit the races equally. There is no exception to the rule that strict scrutiny applies to all racial classifications in the prison context. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499, 160 L. Ed 2d 2949, 125 S. Ct. 1141 (2004).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. It is impermissible for a school district to rely upon an individual student's race in assigning that student to a particular school so that the racial balance at the school falls within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. ___, 168 L. Ed. 2d 508, 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007)
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A public employee cannot state a claim under the equal protection clause by alleging that he or she was arbitrarily treated differently from other similarly situated employees, with no assertion that the different treatment was based on the employee's membership in any particular class. Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. ___, 126 L. Ed. 2d 76, 114 S. Ct. 110, (2008)
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. There is no equal protection violation in a state classifying as nonresidents for tuition purposes persons who are residents for all other purposes. Lister v. Hoover, 655 F.2d 123 (1981).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The postconviction detention of a person is a violation of equal protection if it is occasioned by the prisoner's indigency. Taylor v. Gray, 375 F. Supp. 790.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The contrast between the percentage of the black population of a city, 17.2%, and the percentage of black composition of "fixed wage" skilled craft positions available in the city, 3.1%, evidenced a substantial disparity between the proportion of minorities in the general population and the proportion in a specific job classification and established a prima facie case of unlawful racial discrimination, absent a showing by the city that the statistical discrepancy resulted from causes other than racial discrimination. Crockett v. Grun, 388 F. Supp. 912.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Civil rights actions against municipalities are discussed. Starstead v. City of Superior, 533 F. Supp. 1365 (1982).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Zoning—Equal protection. 1976 WLR 234.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT.
Equal protection—Sex discrimination. 1976 WLR 330.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Although a person may invoke the right against self incrimination in a civil case in order to protect himself in a subsequent criminal action, an inference against the person's interest may be drawn as a matter of law based upon an implied admission that a truthful answer would tend to prove that the witness had committed the criminal act or what might constitute a criminal act. Molloy v. Molloy, 46 Wis. 2d 682, 176 N.W.2d 292.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A school board's refusal to renew a teacher's coaching duties in addition to full-time teaching duties, without notice and hearing, did not violate the right to due process when no charge was made that reflected on an invoked a protected liberty interest and when no legal right in the job gave rise to a protected property interest. Richards v. Board of Education, 58 Wis. 2d 444, 206 N.W.2d 597.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A property interest in employment conferred by state law is protected by the due process provisions of both the state and federal constitutions. State ex rel. DeLuca v. Common Council, 72 Wis. 2d 672, 242 N.W.2d 689.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The due process standard in juvenile proceedings is fundamental fairness. Basic requirements are discussed. In Interest of D.H. 76 Wis. 2d 286, 251 N.W.2d 196.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A permanent status public employee forfeits due process property interests in a job by accepting an inter-departmental promotion. DH&SS v. State Personnel Board, 84 Wis. 2d 675, 267 N.W.2d 644 (1978).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. If an attorney is permitted to withdraw on the day of trial without notice, due process requires granting a continuance. Sherman v. Heiser, 85 Wis. 2d 246, 270 N.W.2d 397 (1978).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Liberty interests in public employment are discussed. Nufer v. Village Bd. of Village of Palmyra, 92 Wis. 2d 289, 284 N.W.2d 649 (1979).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. When a city ordinance specified narrow grounds upon which civil service applicants may be screened out, an applicant had no right to know the grounds for being screened out. Taplick v. City of Madison Personnel Board, 97 Wis. 2d 162, 293 N.W.2d 173 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Due process rights of students at expulsion hearings are discussed. Racine Unified School Dist. v. Thompson, 107 Wis. 2d 657, 321 N.W.2d 334 (Ct. App. 1982).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Due process was not violated when a defendant was illegally arrested in an asylum state and involuntarily brought to trial. State v. Monje, 109 Wis. 2d 138, 325 N.W.2d 695 (1982).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Due process rights of a tenured professor who was alleged to have resigned were not protected by a hearing to determine eligibility for unemployment compensation. Patterson v. University Board of Regents, 119 Wis. 2d 570, 350 N.W.2d 612 (1984).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Attributes of property interests protected by due process are discussed. Waste Management of Wisconsin v. DNR, 128 Wis. 2d 59, 381 N.W.2d 318 (1986).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Due process rights of a probationer at a hearing to modify probation are enumerated. State v. Hayes, 173 Wis. 2d 439, 496 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The tort of intentional denial of due precess is discussed. Old Tuckaway Assoc. v. City of Greenfield, 180 Wis. 2d 254, 509 N.W.2d 323 (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. An inmate has a protected liberty interest in earned good-time credits and in not being placed in segregation. Post-deprivation remedies provided by the state are adequate. Irby v. Macht, 184 Wis. 2d 831, 522 N.W.2d 9 (1994).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A property interest conferred by a statute subsequently amended to make an appointed governmental position at-will is terminated upon the conclusion of the appointing official's term of office. Unertl v. Dane County, 190 Wis. 2d 145, 526 N.W.2d 775 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A procedural due process claim arises when there is a deprivation of a right without sufficient process. Generally a predeprivation hearing is required, but when a deprivation results from a random act of a state employee, the question becomes the adequacy of postdeprivation remedies. Jones v. Dane County, 195 Wis. 2d 892, 537 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1995), 92-0946.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Substantive due process requires that the state not deprive its citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process. Absent a special relationship, it does not impose an affirmative obligation upon the state to ensure the protection of those rights from a private actor, even when governmental aid may be necessary to secure a person's life, liberty, or property. Jones v. Dane County, 195 Wis. 2d 892, 537 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1995), 92-0946.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. When a prisoner could not show that a period of segregated confinement that exceeded the time allowed by rule was not atypical of his prison life generally, there was no unconstitutional due process deprivation. The only time factor that courts will be concerned with in determining a procedural due process deprivation is the time the inmate is ultimately required to spend confined under the authority of the state. Chaney v. Renteria, 203 Wis. 2d 310, 554 N.W.2d 503 (Ct. App. 1996), 94-2557.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Foster children have a constitutional right under the due process clause to safe and secure placement in a foster home. Whether a public official violated that right will be determined based on a professional judgment standard. Kara B. v. Dane County, 205 Wis. 2d 140, 555 N.W.2d 630 (1996), 94-1081.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. An inmate has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in not having his mandatory release date extended. Due process is violated in a prison discipline case when guilt is found if there is not "some evidence" that supports the finding of guilt. Santiago v. Ware, 205 Wis. 2d 295, 556 N.W.2d 356 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0079.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A nonlawyer may not sign and file a notice of appeal on behalf of a corporation. To do so constitutes practicing law without a license in violation of s. 757.30 and voids the appeal. Requiring a lawyer to file the notice does not violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Jadair Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co. 209 Wis. 2d 187, 561 N.W.2d 718 (1997), 95-1946.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Whether to proceed with civil litigation or to hold it in abeyance while a party is incarcerated depends on the nature of the case, the practical concerns raised by the prisoner's appearance, and the alternative methods available to provide the prisoner with access to the hearing. Schmidt v. Schmidt, 212 Wis. 2d 405, 569 N.W.2d 74 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3699.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The state and federal constitutions provide identical procedural due process and equal protection safeguards. County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97-0642.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. In a procedural due process claim, it is not the deprivation of property or liberty that is unconstitutional; it is the deprivation without due process of law. Arneson v. Jezwinski, 225 Wis. 2d 371, 592 N.W.2d 606 (1999), 97-1867.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Substantive due process guarantees protect citizens against arbitrary action of government. To violate substantive due process guarantees, a decision must involve more than simple errors in law or an improper exercise of discretion; it must shock the conscience. Eternalist Foundation, Inc. v. City of Platteville, 225 Wis. 2d 759, 593 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1944.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A criminal proceeding may be conclusive against a 3rd party only if the 3rd party and criminal defendant have sufficient identity of interest so that in the prior proceeding the 3rd party had a full opportunity to fairly adjudicate the issues leading to the conviction. If not, the 3rd party's due process rights would be violated by the application of issue preclusion. Paige K.B. v. Steven G.B. 226 Wis. 2d 210, 594 N.W.2d 370 (1999), 97-0873.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A deprivation of the due process right of a fair warning can occur, not only from vague statutory language, but also from unforeseeable and retroactive interpretation of that statutory language. Elections Board v. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, 227 Wis. 2d 650, 597 N.W.2d 721 (1999), 98-0596.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The retroactive application of a substantive statute must meet the test of due process determined by balancing the public interest served by retroactive application against the private interests that are overturned. Neiman v. American National Property & Casualty Co. 2000 WI 83, 236 Wis. 2d 411, 613 N.W.2d 160, 99-2554.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The imposition of liability without fault, even when the statute imposes punitive sanctions, does not in itself violate due process. Statutes that are within the police power of the state may impose even criminal liability on a person whose acts violate the statute, even if the person did not intend to do so. Gross v. Woodman's Food Market, Inc. 2002 WI App 295, 259 Wis. 2d 181, 655 N.W.2d 718, 01-1746.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A parent who has a substantial relationship with his or her child has a fundamental liberty interest in parenting the child. It is fundamentally unfair to terminate parental rights based solely on a parent's status as a victim of incest. Monroe County DHS v. Kelli B. 2004 WI 48, 03-0060.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The due process clause of the 14th Amendment includes the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, including the right to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control, but that right is neither absolute nor unqualified. Parents do not have a fundamental right direct how a public school teaches their child or to dictate the curriculum at the public school to which they have chosen to send their child. Larson v. Burmaster, 2006 WI App 142, 295 Wis. 2d 333, 720 N.W.2d 134, 05-1433.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A prisoner has a liberty interest in avoiding forced nutrition and hydration, but department of corrections may infringe on the prisoner's liberty interest by forcing him or her to ingest food and fluids against his or her will. A court may enter a temporary ex parte order for involuntarily feeding and hydration, if exigent circumstances require immediate involuntary treatment in order to avoid serious harm to or the death of an inmate. Continuation of the order requires the right to an evidentiary hearing when DOC's allegations are disputed, the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the evidentiary hearing, and that the order cannot be of indefinite or permanent duration without periodic review. Department of Corrections v. Saenz, 2007 WI App 25, 299 Wis. 2d 486, 728 N.W.2d 765, 05-2750.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Prisoners' due process rights are discussed. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Public high school students facing temporary suspension have property and liberty interests protected by due process. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Garnishment of corporate bank accounts must comply with due process protections of Fuentes and Sniadach. North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. 419 U.S. 601.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The Wisconsin medical examining board does not deny due process by both investigating and adjudicating charge of professional misconduct. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. States may deny benefits to those who fail to prove they did not quit a job in order to obtain benefits. Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Due process does not disqualify an agency as a decision maker merely because of familiarity with the facts of a case. Hortonville Dist. v. Hortonville Ed. Asso. 426 U.S. 482.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Dismissal from medical school for academic deficiencies without a hearing did not violate the due process clause. Board of Curators, Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Utility customers' due process rights were violated when the utility shut off service for nonpayment without advising the customers of available administrative procedures. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1978).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A father's acquiescence in his daughter's desire to live with her mother in California did not confer jurisdiction over father in California courts. Kulko v. California Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The due process clause was not violated when the IRS monitored a conversation with the defendant in violation of IRS rules. United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A state may not exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over a defendant having no forum contacts by attacking the contractual obligation of the defendant's insurer licensed in the state. Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Involuntary transfer of a prisoner to a mental hospital implicated protected liberty interests. Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The termination of appointed assistant public defenders, who were neither policymakers nor confidential employees, solely on grounds of political affiliation was a denial of 1st and 14th amendment rights. Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Segregation confinement of a prisoner without prior hearing may violate due process if postponement of procedural protections is not justified by apprehended emergency conditions. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. When an accident involving only Wisconsin residents occurred in Wisconsin, the fact that the decedent had been employed in Minnesota conferred jurisdiction on Minnesota courts and Minnesota insurance law was applicable. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The national democratic party has a protected right of political association and may not be compelled to seat delegates chosen in an open primary in violation of the party's rules. Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A statute that required a putative father in a paternity suit to pay for blood tests denied due process to indigent putative fathers. Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1 (1981).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Due process does not require appointment of counsel for indigent parents in every parental status termination proceeding. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A life prisoner had no due process right to a statement of reasons why the board did not commute his life sentence. Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (1981).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. An ordinance regulating the sale of drug paraphernalia was constitutional. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489 (1982).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Revocation of probation for failure to pay a fine, without a determination that the probationer had not made a bona fide effort to pay or that alternate forms of punishment did not exist, denied due process and equal protection. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Notice by publication did not satisfy due process requirements in a tax sale. Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (1983).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A state's policy of preserving county boundaries in a reapportionment plan justified a population deviation averaging 13%. Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (1983).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A minority set-aside program violated due process. Richmond v. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469, 102 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1989).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Abortion restrictions complied with constitutional protections. Webster v. Reproductive Health Serv. 492 U.S. 490, 106 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1989).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Assuming that a competent person has a constitutional right to refuse treatment, a state may require clear and convincing evidence that an incompetent patient desired withdrawal of treatment. Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Health Dept. 497 U.S. 261, 111 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1990).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Substantive due process is not violated by a police officer who causes death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high speed chase aimed at apprehending a suspect. Only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest satisfies the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience necessary for a due process violation. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1998).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. In lieu of exclusive reliance on a judge's personal inquiry into his or her actual bias, or on appellate review of the judge's determination respecting actual bias, the due process clause has been implemented by objective standards that do not require proof of actual bias. In defining these standards the U.S. Supreme Court has asked whether, under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness, the interest poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. 556 U.S. ___, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2009).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. There is a serious risk of actual bias, based on objective and reasonable perceptions, when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on a case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign while the case was pending or imminent. The inquiry centers on the contribution's relative size in comparison to the total amount of money contributed to the campaign, the total amount spent in the election, and the apparent effect the contribution had on the outcome of the election. Whether campaign contributions were a necessary and sufficient cause of a judge's victory is not the proper inquiry. Due process requires an objective inquiry into whether the contributor's influence on the election under all the circumstances would offer a possible temptation to the average judge to lead the judge not to hold the balance "nice, clear, and true." Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. 556 U.S. ___, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2009).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. It is not a violation of the due process clause to tow an illegally parked car without first giving the owner notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the lawfulness of the towing. Sutton v. City of Milwaukee, 672 F.2d 644 (1982).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A village board's denial of an application for a liquor license did not deprive the applicant of either liberty or property. Scott v. Village of Kewaskum, 786 F.2d 338 (1986).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A teacher's alleged de facto tenure is not a protected property interest. Liberty interests are discussed. Stevens v. Jt. School Dist. No. 1, Tony, Etc. 429 F. Supp. 477.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A sheriff violated a tenant's protectible property interest by executing a stale writ of restitution. Wolf-Lillie v. Kenosha Cty. Sheriff, 504 F. Supp. 1 (1980).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. One cannot have a constitutionally protected interest solely in a state law procedure; a separate property interest must also be present. Molgaard v. Town of Caledonia, 527 F. Supp. 1073 (1981).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Demon rum and the dirty dance: reconsidering government regulation of live sex entertainment after California v. La Rue. 1975 WLR 161.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Reasonable corporal punishment by school official over parental objection is constitutional. 1976 WLR 689.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Procedural due process in public schools: The "thicket" of Goss v. Lopez. 1976 WLR 934.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Impartial decisionmaker—authority of school board to dismiss striking teachers. 1977 WLR 521.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT.
Property interest—government employment—state law defines limitation of entitlement. 1977 WLR 575.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. An adult bookstore has no right to protect the privacy rights of its customers in a public, commercial establishment. City News & Novelty v. City of Waukesha, 170 Wis. 2d 14, 487 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A narrowly drawn anti-cruising ordinance did not violate the right to assemble or travel. Scheunemann v. City of West Bend, 179 Wis. 2d 469, 507 N.W.2d 163 (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. The right to intrastate travel, including the right to move about one's neighborhood in an automobile, is fundamental, but infringements on the right are not subject to strict scrutiny. Cruising ordinances, reasonable in time, place and manner, do not violate this right. Brandmiller v. Arreola, 199 Wis. 2d 528, 544 N.W.2d 849 (1996), 93-2842.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. A father, who intentionally refused to pay child support could, as a condition of probation, be required to avoid having another child, unless he showed that he could support that child and his current children. In light of the defendant's ongoing victimization of his children and record manifesting his disregard for the law, this condition was not overly broad and was reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation. State v. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 245 Wis. 2d 447, 629 N.W.2d 200, 99-3328.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. Banishment from a particular place is not a per se violation of the right to travel. There is no exact formula for determining whether a geographic restriction is narrowly tailored. Each case must be analyzed on its own facts, circumstances, and total atmosphere to determine whether the geographic restriction is narrowly drawn. Predick v. O'Connor, 2003 WI App 46, 260 Wis. 2d 323, 660 N.W.2d 1, 02-0503.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT. In order for a putative biological father to have the necessary foundation for a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his putative paternity, he would have to have taken affirmative steps to assume his parental responsibilities for the child. Randy A. J. v. Norma I. J. 2004 WI 41, 270 Wis. 2d 384, 676 N.W.2d 452, 02-0469.
Article I, §1 - ANNOT.
Putative father's right to custody of his child. 1971 WLR 1262.
Article I, §2 Slavery prohibited. Section 2. There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in this state, otherwise than for the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Article I, §3 Free speech; libel. Section 3. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A city can validly prohibit picketing private homes when the subject of the picketing has no relationship to any activity carried on there. Wauwatosa v. King, 49 Wis. 2d 398, 182 N.W.2d 530.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A journalist has a constitutional right to the privilege not to disclose sources of information received in a confidential relationship, but when such confidence is in conflict with the public's overriding need to know, it must yield to the interest of justice. The state need not affirmatively demonstrate proof of compelling need or lack of an alternative method of obtaining the information sought when the crimes involved and the prevention of repetition of those crimes constitute a compelling need. State v. Knops, 49 Wis. 2d 647, 183 N.W.2d 93.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Only that portion of an obscenity ordinance defining obscenity in Roth-Memoirs terms is unconstitutional, and the remainder is a viable, effective ordinance when supplemented by the supreme court's Chobot obscenity definition "community standards" definition. Madison v. Nickel, 66 Wis. 2d 71, 223 N.W.2d 865.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The majority representative's exclusive right to represent all employees in a bargaining unit precludes speech by others in the form of bargaining or negotiating for a labor agreement, but the infringement on speech is justified by the necessity to avoid the dangers attendant upon relative chaos in labor-management relations. Madison Joint School District No. 8 v. WERC, 69 Wis. 2d 200, 231 N.W.2d 206.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Prohibiting the solicitation of prostitutes does not violate the right of free speech. Shillcutt v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 642, 247 N.W.2d 694.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. When a radio talk show announcer was fired for allowing talk show guests to slander minorities, the announcer's right of free speech was not infringed. Augustine v. Anti-Defamation Lg. B'nai B'rith, 75 Wis. 2d 207, 249 N.W.2d 547.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. When the record did not indicate that a tenant union provided inadequate, unethical, or complex legal advice to tenants, the tenant union's information service was protected by free speech guarantees. Hopper v. Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 120, 256 N.W.2d 139.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The public's right to be aware of all facts surrounding an issue does not interfere with the right of a newspaper to reject advertising. Wis. Assoc. of Nursing Homes v. Journal Co. 92 Wis. 2d 709, 285 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1979).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Procedures to determine whether a journalist may properly invoke privilege to prevent disclosure of confidential sources set. Green Bay Newspaper v. Circuit Court, 113 Wis. 2d 411, 335 N.W.2d 367 (1983).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The right of free speech applies against state action, not private action. Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492, 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. News gatherers have no constitutional right of access to disaster scenes beyond that accorded the general public. City of Oak Creek v. King, 148 Wis. 2d 532, 436 N.W.2d 285 (1989).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Commercial speech is protected by the 1st amendment. The government must show a restriction directly advances a substantial interest for it to be constitutional. City of Milwaukee v. Blondis, 157 Wis. 2d 730, 460 N.W.2d 815 (Ct. App. 1990).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A sentence based on an activity protected by the 1st amendment is constitutionally invalid, but when a sufficient link to criminal activity is shown, the activity is no longer protected. State v. J.E.B. 161 Wis. 2d 655, 469 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1991).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Although music is accorded a presumption of being protected speech, an ordinance prohibiting all unreasonable noise was not an unconstitutionally vague encroachment on free speech. City of Madison v. Bauman, 162 Wis. 2d 660, 470 N.W.2d 296 (1991).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. An employee's free speech rights were not violated when the employer's need for confidentiality and discipline clearly outweighed the employee's interest in disclosing confidential information. Barnhill v. Board of Regents, 166 Wis. 2d 395, 479 N.W.2d 917 (1992).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Prison inmates 1st amendment rights are subject to limitation and regulation. Interception and withholding of inter-inmate correspondence was reasonable. Yoder v. Palmeri, 177 Wis. 2d 756, 502 N.W.2d 903 (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Whether a restriction on nude dancing is overbroad depends on whether the ordinance is targeted at curbing only harmful secondary effects of exotic clubs. Fond du Lac County v. Mentzel, 195 Wis. 2d 313, 536 N.W.2d 160 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-1924.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The state's power to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages under the 21st amendment includes the lesser power to ban nude dancing on premises where alcohol is served. Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 195 Wis. 2d 554, 536 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-3106.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The restriction of prison inmates free speech rights are discussed. Lomax v. Fiedler, 204 Wis. 2d 196, 554 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2304.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A zoning ordinance that did not set aside any area where an adult bookstore would be allowed was impermissible. Town of Wayne v. Bishop, 210 Wis. 2d 218, 565 N.W.2d 201 (Ct. App. 1997), 95-2387.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A public nudity ordinance will meet a challenge that it is facially overbroad if it is drafted in a manner that addresses the secondary effects of adult entertainment without suffocating protected expression in a real and substantial manner. Lounge Management v. Town of Trenton, 219 Wis. 2d 13, 580 N.W.2d 156 (1998), 96-1853.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Obscenity is, and has been, an abuse of the right to speak freely on all subjects under the state constitution. The breadth of protection offered by the Wisconsin constitution in the context of obscenity is no greater than that afforded by the 1st amendment. County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97-0642.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. It may be appropriate to consider context in determining whether a communication "expressly advocates" the election, defeat, recall, or retention of a clearly identified candidate or a particular vote at a referendum, within the meaning of s. 11.01 (16) (a) 1. Elections Board v. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, 227 Wis. 2d 650, 597 N.W.2d 721 (1999), 98-0596.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. When an ordinance regulates 1st amendment activities, the government normally has the burden of defending the regulation beyond a reasonable doubt, but when prior restraints are concerned and the government action at issue is the review of an applicant's qualifications for a business license, the city does not bear the burden of going to court to effect the denial of a license, nor does it bear the burden of proof once in court. City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 231 Wis. 2d 93, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-1504.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Unfiled pretrial materials in a civil action between private parties are not public records and neither the public nor the press has either a common law or constitutional right of access to those materials. State ex rel. Mitsubishi v. Milwaukee County, 2000 WI 16, 233 Wis. 2d 1, 605 N.W.2d 868, 99-2810.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A town ordinance prohibiting nudity on premises operating under a retail Class B liquor license was constitutional under Erie, 146 L. Ed. 2d. 265. Urmanski v. Town of Bradley, 2000 WI App 141, 237 Wis. 2d 545, 613 N.W.2d 905, 99-2330.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Only a "true threat" is punishable under statutes criminalizing threats. A true threat is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views, or other similarly protected speech. It is not necessary that the speaker have the ability to carry out the threat. State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, 99-1924.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Application of the disorderly conduct statute to speech alone is permissible under appropriate circumstances. When speech is not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, when it is utterly devoid of social value, and when it can cause or provoke a disturbance, the disorderly conduct statute can be applicable. State v. A.S., 2001 WI 48, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712, 99-2317.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Purely written speech, even if it fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct, but the state has the burden to prove that the speech is constitutionally unprotected "abusive" conduct. "Abusive" conduct is conduct that is injurious, improper, hurtful, offensive, or reproachful. True threats clearly fall within the scope of this definition. State v. Douglas D. 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99-1767.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Although the 1st amendment prohibits law enforcement officials from prosecuting protected speech, it does not necessarily follow that schools may not discipline students for such speech. Like law enforcement officials, educators may not punish students merely for expressing unpopular viewpoints, but the 1st amendment must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Schools may limit or discipline conduct that for any reason materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. State v. Douglas D. 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99-1767.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A county public assembly ordinance that contained a 60-day advance filing requirement, a 45-day processing time period, a prohibition against advertising, promoting, and selling tickets before a license was issued, a required certification by the zoning administrator, and a license fee in excess of $100 per application was not narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and violated the 1st amendment free speech guarantee. Sauk County v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165, 266 Wis. 2d 758, 669 N.W.2d 509, 02-0204.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The exception to protection for "true threats" is not limited to threats directed only at a person or group of individuals, nor is it limited to a threat of bodily harm or death. State v. Robert T. 2008 WI App 22, 307 Wis. 2d 488, 746 N.W.2d 564, 06-2206.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Free speech and the state's campaign finance law are discussed in light of Buckley v. Valeo. 65 Atty. Gen. 145.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Car card space on a city transit system is not a free speech forum. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A flag misuse statute was unconstitutional as applied to a flag hung upside down with a peace symbol affixed when the context imbued the display with protected elements of communication. Spence v. State of Washington, 418 U.S. 405.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Commercial advertising is protected free speech. Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Campaign expenditure limitations unduly restrict political expression. Contribution limits impose serious burdens on free speech only if they are so low as to prevent candidates and political committees from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1. See also McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission, 540 U.S. 93, 157 L. E. 2d 491, 124 S. Ct. 619 (2003), Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, 165 L. Ed. 2d 482, 126 S. Ct. 2479 (2006). Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. 551 U.S. ___, 168 L. Ed. 2d 329, 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Prior restraint of news media to limit pretrial publicity is discussed. Nebraska Press Asso. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A board of education may not prevent a non-union teacher from speaking of a bargaining issue at an open meeting. Madison School District v. Wisconsin Employment Commission, 429 U.S. 167.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Corporations' free speech rights are discussed. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The 1st amendment prohibited the prosecution of a newspaper for publishing confidential proceedings of a commission investigating judicial conduct. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Collective activity undertaken to obtain meaningful access to courts is a fundamental right protected by the 1st amendment. In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A newspaper office may be searched for evidence of a crime even though the newspaper is not suspected of a crime. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The 1st amendment does not guarantee the public's or media's right of access to sources of information within government control. Houchins v. KQED, Inc. 438 U.S. 1 (1978).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Public employee private, as well as public, speech is protected. Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. 439 U.S. 410 (1979).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The press and public have no constitutional right to attend a pretrial suppression hearing when the defendant demands a closed hearing to avoid prejudicial publicity. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A public utility had the free speech right to enclose with bills inserts discussing controversial issues of public policy. Consolidated Edison v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 530 (1980).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. For restrictions on commercial speech to stand a constitutional challenge, the restriction must not be more extensive than is necessary to serve the government's interests. Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. An ordinance prohibiting a live dancing exhibition violated the free speech clause. Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61 (1981).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A statute prohibiting nude dancing in establishments licensed by a state to sell liquor was valid under the 21st amendment. New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714 (1981).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A statute that prohibits placing unstamped mailable matter in any box approved by the U.S. postal service does not violate the free speech clause. U.S. Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Assn. 453 U.S. 114 (1981).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. An ordinance that placed substantial restrictions on billboards other than those used for onsite commercial advertising violated the free speech clause. Metromedia v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A public university that provided a forum to many student groups but excluded religious student groups violated the principle that state regulation of speech should be content neutral. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. An ordinance regulating the sale of drug paraphernalia was constitutional. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489 (1982).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. There are constitutional limits on the state's power to prohibit candidates from making promises in the course of an election campaign. Some promises are universally acknowledged as legitimate, indeed indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy. Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A school board's discretion to determine the contents of school libraries may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner. Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The discharge of public employee did not deny free speech rights, under the facts of the case. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A sidewalk is a "public forum". The prohibition of leaflets denied free speech. U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The government's substantial interest in maintaining the park in the heart of the capital in an attractive condition sustained a regulation against camping or overnight sleeping in public parks. Free speech was not denied. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A school district did not violate the free speech clause by disciplining a student for giving an offensively lewd and indecent speech at a school assembly. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. School administrators may exercise control over style and content of student speech in school-sponsored activities as long as control is reasonably related to "legitimate pedagogical concerns." Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A state may not categorically ban targeted, direct-mail advertising by attorneys. Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn. 486 U.S. 466 (1988).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A Brookfield ordinance prohibiting picketing of individuals' residences was not facially invalid. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A protester's conviction for flag desecration violated the right of free speech. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The 1st amendment prohibits employment decisions concerning low-level public employees to be based upon political patronage. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 111 L. Ed. 2d 52 (1990).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A public indecency statute barring public nudity and requiring dancers to wear pasties and G-strings did not violate the right of free expression. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 501 U.S. 560, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1991).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Press freedom does not confer a constitutional right to disregard promises that would otherwise be enforceable under state law. A possible promissory estoppel action for breaching an agreement to keep a source confidential was not barred. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 115 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1991).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A county ordinance requiring a permit for all parades and public assemblies that gave the county administrator power to adjust permit fees to meet police expenses incident to the assembly violated the 1st amendment as being an impermissible assessment of the permittee's speech content was required to determine the expenses to be incurred in maintaining order at the assembly. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 120 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1992).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Exclusion of "fighting words" from free speech protections did not justify a city ordinance banning displays that convey messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance. A city may not selectively ban fighting words based on the particular idea expressed. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A city ban on newsracks for commercial publications violated the right to free speech when the city failed to establish a "reasonable fit" between its legitimate interest in safety and aesthetics and the ban. Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. 410, 123 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1993).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Denial of the use of a school building to a church seeking to exhibit a film when a nonsectarian group would have been allowed the use of the building to show a secular film on the same topic violated the right of free speech. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches, 508 U.S. 34, 124 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1993).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. For a government employee's speech to be protected, the speech must be on a matter of public concern and the employee's interest in expressing himself or herself on the matter must outweigh the injury the speech could cause the employer in providing public services through its employees. Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 128 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1994). See also Burkes v. Klauser, 185 Wis. 2d 309, 517 N.W.2d 502 (1994).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A city's ban on almost all residential signs violated the right of free speech. City of LaDue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 26, 129 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1994).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. An Ohio statute prohibiting the distribution of anonymous campaign literature violated the right of free speech. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1995).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The selection of the makeup a parade is entitled to free speech protection. A parade sponsor's free speech rights include the right to deny a group's participation who intends to convey a message contrary to the sponsor's. Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group, 515 U.S. 557, 132 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1995).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A state university that funded printing a broad range of student publications but denied funding for a student religious group's publication violated free speech guarantees and was not excused by the need to comply with the establishment of religion clause. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 132 L. Ed. 2d (1995).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. As with government employees whose employment may not be terminated for exercising 1st amendment rights, independent contractors may not have their government contracts terminated for refusing to support a political party or its candidates or for exercising free speech rights. Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 135 L. Ed. 2d 843 (1996) and O'Hare Truck Service v. Northlake, 518 U.S. 712, 135 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1996).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The constitutionality of injunctions restraining actions by abortion clinic protesters is discussed. Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 137 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1997).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Assessments against commodity producers under an agricultural marketing order to pay for the costs of generic advertising did not violate the producer's free speech rights. Glickaman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. 521 U.S. 457, 138 L. Ed. 2d 585 (1997).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A public broadcasting network's decision to exclude an independent candidate who had little public support was a permissible exercise of journalistic discretion. Arkansas Educational TV v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 140 L. Ed. 2d 875 (1998).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. It is a violation of the 4th amendment for police to bring members of the media or other 3rd persons into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of the 3rd persons in the home is not in aid of the execution of the warrant. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 143 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1999).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The financing of student organizations through mandatory student fees does not violate the 1st amendment if viewpoint neutrality is the operational principal. Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 146 L. Ed. 2d 193 (2000).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. An ordinance prohibiting public nudity was valid when the government's asserted interest was combating the secondary effect associated with adult entertainment and was unrelated to suppression of the erotic message of nude dancing. Erie v. Pap's A.M. 529 U.S. 277, 146 L. Ed. 2d 265 (2000).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A statute that makes it unlawful within regulated areas for any person to "knowingly approach" within eight feet of another person, without that person's consent, "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person" is constitutional. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 147 L. Ed. 2d 597 (2000)
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Inmate to inmate correspondence that includes legal assistance does not receive more 1st amendment protection than other correspondence. Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 149 LEd 2d 420 (2001).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The 1st amendment protects speech that discloses the content of an illegally intercepted telephone call when that speech was by a person not a party to the interception. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 149 L. Ed. 2d 787 (2001).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Speech discussing otherwise permissible subjects cannot be excluded from a limited public forum, such as a school, on the grounds that it is discussed from a religious viewpoint. A club's meetings, held after school, not sponsored by the school, and open to to any student who obtained parental consent, did not raise an establishment of religion violation that could be raised to justify content-based discrimination against the club. Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98, 150 L. Ed. 2d 151 (2001).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the village and obtaining a permit violated the 1st amendment. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 153 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2002).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A state, consistent with the 1st amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, but a Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate was unconstitutional. Instead of prohibiting all intimidating messages, a state may choose to regulate this subset of intimidating messages in light of cross burnings' long and pernicious history as a signal of impending violence. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 155 L. E. 2d 535, 123 S. Ct. 1536 (2003).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Regulation of charitable subscriptions, barring fees in excess of a prescribed level, effectively imposes prior restraints on fundraising, and is incompatible with the 1st amendment. However, any and all reliance on the percentage of charitable donations fundraisers retain for themselves is not prohibited. While bare failure to disclose that information to potential donors does not establish fraud, when nondisclosure is accompanied by intentionally misleading statements designed to deceive the listener, a fraud claim is permissible. Illinois v. Telemarketing Associates, Inc. 538 U.S. 600, 155 L. Ed. 2d 793, 123 S. Ct. 1829 (2003).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The 1st amendment requires that an adult business licensing scheme assure prompt judicial review of an administrative decision denying a license. An ordinance providing that the city's final decision may be appealed to state court pursuant to state rules of civil procedure did not violate the 1st amendment. City of Littleton v. Z. J. Gifts D-4, L. L. C, 541 U.S. 774, 159 L. Ed 2d 84, 124 S. Ct. 2219 (2004).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Government employees do not relinquish all 1st amendment rights enjoyed by citizens by reason of their employment, but a governmental employer may impose certain restraints on speech of its employees that would be unconstitutional if applied to the general public. Employees have rights to speak on matters of public concern. When government employees speak or write on their own time on topics unrelated to their employment, the speech can have protection, absent some governmental justification far stronger than mere speculation in regulating it. San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 160 L. Ed 2d 410, 125 S. Ct. 521 (2004).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for 1st amendment purposes, and the constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee's professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 164 L. Ed. 2d 689, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. School officials did not violate the 1st amendment by confiscating a pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. ___, 168 L. Ed. 2d 290, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Enforcement of a rule adopted by a statewide membership corporation organized to regulate interscholastic sports among its members that prohibited high school coaches from recruiting middle school athletes did not violates the 1st amendment. There is a difference of constitutional dimension between rules prohibiting appeals to the public at large and rules prohibiting direct, personalized communication in a coercive setting. Bans on direct solicitations are more akin to a conduct regulation than a speech restriction, but restrictions are limited to conduct that is inherently conducive to overreaching and other forms of misconduct. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association v. Brentwood Academy, 551 U.S. ___, 168 L. Ed. 2d 166, 127 S. Ct. 2489 (2007).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the 1st amendment. Offers to deal in illegal products or otherwise engage in illegal activity do not acquire 1st amendment protection when the offeror is mistaken about the factual predicate of his or her offer. Impossibility of completing the crime because the facts were not as the defendant believed is not a defense. U.S. v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___, 128 S. Ct. 1830; 170 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2008)
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The free speech clause of the first amendment restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech. Although a park is a traditional public forum for speeches and other transitory expressive acts, the display of a permanent monument in a public park is not a form of expression to which forum analysis applies. Instead, the placement of a permanent monument in a public park is best viewed as a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the free speech clause of the first amendment. Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. ____ (2009).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Generally, the 1st amendment protects a person from being removed from public employment for purely political reasons. However, exemptions from the patronage dismissal ban are allowed on the theory that a newly elected administration has a legitimate interest in implementing the broad policies it was elected to implement without interference from disloyal employees. Pleva v. Norquist, 195 F.3d 905 (1999).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. With one exception, the university's system, as required by Southworth, for distributing compelled fees collected from university students to student groups that delegates funding decisions to the student government was subject to sufficient limits. Southworth v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 307 F.3d 566 (2002).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A regulation prohibiting the sale of liquor on the premises of adult entertainment establishments is constitutional if: 1) the state is regulating pursuant to a legitimate governmental power; 2) the regulation does not completely prohibit adult entertainment; 3) the regulation is aimed at combating the negative effects caused by the establishments, not the suppression of expression; 4) the regulation is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest, is narrowly tailored, and reasonable avenues of communication remain; or alternatively the regulation furthers substantial governmental interests and the restriction is no greater than is essential to further that interest. Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (2003).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The dividing line between publications that may be denied to prisoners and those that may not is not a matter of administrative grace, but of constitutional right. Gaugh v. Schmidt, 369 F. Supp. 877.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A town board was restrained from discharging its police chief until the issue of impermissible consideration of the chief's political activities was resolved. Kuhlmann v. Bloomfield Township 521 F. Supp. 1242 (1981).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Content neutral size restrictions placed on a banner proclaiming "Church/State--Keep Them Separate," after it was hung in the state capitol rotunda, served the state's significant interest in protecting the capitol from visual degradation. That a Christmas tree and Menorah in the rotunda were allowed to remain without restriction did not prove content based discrimination. Gaylor v. Thompson, 939 F. Supp. 1363 (1996).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Behind the Curtain of Privacy: How Obscenity Law Inhibits the Expression of Ideas About Sex and Gender. Peterson. 1998 WLR 625.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Testimonial privilege of newsmen. Baxter, 55 MLR 184.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Academic freedom; some tentative guidelines. Keith, 55 MLR 379.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Protection of commercial speech. 60 MLR 138.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Zurcher: third party searches and freedom of the press. Cantrell. 62 MLR 35 (1978).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A newspaper cannot constitutionally be compelled to publish a paid advertisement designed to be an editorial response to previous newspaper reports. 64 MLR 361 (1980).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Granting access to private shopping center property for free speech purposes on the basis of a state constitutional provision does not violate owner's federal constitutional property rights or first amendment free speech rights. 64 MLR 507 (1981).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. First amendment and freedom of press: A revised approach to marketplace of ideas concept. Gary. 72 MLR 187 (1989).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Architectural Appearances Ordinances and the 1st Amendment. Rice. 76 MLR 439 (1992).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Hate Crimes: New Limits on the Scope of the 1st Amendment. Resler. 77 MLR 415 (1994).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Improving the Odds of the Central Balancing Test; Restricting Commercial Speech as a Last Resort. Gulling. 81 MLR 873 (1998).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Researcher-subject testimonial privilege. Newels and Lehman, 1971 WLR 1085.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Freedom of speech, expression and action. Hilmes, 1971 WLR 1209.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Free speech on premises of privately owned shopping center. Felsenthal, 1973 WLR 612.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Constitutional protection of critical speech and the public figure doctrine: Retreat by reaffirmation. 1980 WLR 568.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Corporate "persons" and freedom of speech: The political impact of legal mythology. Payton and Bartlett, 1981 WLR 494.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Mortices Union Free School District: Creating Greater Protection Religious Speech Through the Illusion of Public Forum Analysis. Ehrmann. 1994 WLR 965.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The Journalist's Privilege. Kassel. Wis. Law. Feb. 1996.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT.
The Price of Free Speech: Regents v. Southworth. Furlow. Wis. Law. June 2000.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The burden of proof and determination of damages in libel cases is discussed. Dalton v. Meister, 52 Wis. 2d 173, 188 N.W.2d 494.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. In a libel action involving a public figure or a matter of public concern, the defendant is entitled to the "clear and convincing" burden of proof and also to a finding of the type of malice involved. Polzin v. Helmbrecht, 54 Wis. 2d 578, 196 N.W.2d 685.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. In determining punitive damages in libel cases, it is relevant to consider the maximum fine for a similar offense under the criminal code. Wozniak v. Local 1111 of UE, 57 Wis. 2d 725, 205 N.W.2d 369.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The executive committee of the medical staff of a private hospital is not a quasi-judicial body so as to render a letter to it privileged. DiMiceli v. Klieger, 58 Wis. 2d 359, 206 N.W.2d 184.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. "Public figure" is defined. The constitutional protections of news media and individual defamers are discussed. Denny v. Mertz, 106 Wis. 2d 636, 318 N.W.2d 141 (1982).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A private citizen may become a public figure regarding a particular issue that is of substantial public interest and must prove actual malice to prevail in a libel action. Weigel v. Capital Times Co. 145 Wis. 2d 71, 426 N.W.2d 43 (Ct. App. 1988).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege, subject to 2 restrictions: 1) the statement must be in a procedural context recognized as privileged; and 2) it must be relevant to the matter under consideration. Rady v. Lutz, 150 Wis. 2d 643, 444 N.W.2d 58 (Ct. App. 1989).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A fire department captain with considerable power and discretion is a public official who must meet the malice requirement. Defendant firefighters had a common law privilege to comment in writing on the captain's fitness for office. Miller v. Minority Brotherhood, 158 Wis. 2d 589, 463 N.W.2d 690 (Ct. App. 1990).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. If a defamation plaintiff is a public figure, there must be proof of actual malice. The deliberate choice of one interpretation of a number of possible interpretations does not create a jury issue of actual malice. The selective destruction by a defendant of materials likely to be relevant to defamation litigation allows an inference that the materials would have provided evidence of actual malice. Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. 210 Wis. 2d 524, 563 N.W.2d 472 (1997), 95-1098.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. For purposes of libel law, a "public figure" who must prove malice includes a person who by being drawn into or interjecting himself or herself into a public controversy becomes a public figure for a limited purpose because of involvement in the particular controversy, which status can be created without purposeful or voluntary conduct by the individual involved. Erdmann v. SF Broadcasting of Green Bay, Inc. 229 Wis. 2d 156, 599 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2660.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A "public dispute" is not simply a matter of interest to the public. It must be a real dispute, the outcome of which affects the general public in an appreciable way. Essentially private concerns do not become public controversies because they attract attention; its ramifications must be felt by persons who are not direct participants. Maguire v. Journal Sentinel, Inc. 2000 WI App 4, 232 Wis. 2d 236, 605 N.W.2d 881, 97-3675.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. In defamation cases, circuit courts should ordinarily decide a pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim before sanctioning a party for refusing to disclose information that would identify otherwise-anonymous members of an organization. Lassa v. Rongstad, 2006 WI 105, 294 Wis. 2d 187, 718 N.W.2d 673, 04-0377.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Actual malice requires that the allegedly defamatory statement be made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Actual malice does not mean bad intent, ill-will, or animus. Repeated publication of a statement after being informed that the statement was false does not constitute actual malice so long as the speaker believes it to be true. Actual malice cannot be inferred from the choice of one rational interpretation of a speech over another. Donohoo v. Action Wisconsin, Inc. 2008 WI 56, 309 Wis. 2d 704, 750 N.W.2d 739, 06-0396.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. The plaintiff was a public figure for all purposes when he was involved in highly controversial and newsworthy activities while in public office; the publicity and controversy surrounding these events continued well after the term of office ended; the plaintiff remained in the news after leaving office as a result of new developments in the various inquiries into his official conduct; and he had a connection with another public official in the news. Biskupic v. Cicero, 2008 WI App 117, 313 Wis. 2d 225, 756 N.W.2d 649, 07-2314.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. In general, the destruction of notes allows an inference that the notes would have provided evidence of actual malice, but this rule is not absolute. Because the plaintiff had not shown any way the destroyed notes might show actual malice, the destruction of the notes did not create a material factual dispute preventing summary judgment. Biskupic v. Cicero, 2008 WI App 117, 313 Wis. 2d 225, 756 N.W.2d 649, 07-2314.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. State libel laws are preempted by federal labor laws to the extent statements made without knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth are at issue. Old Dominion Br. No. 496, Nat. Asso., Letter Car. v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. A public figure who sues media companies for libel may inquire into the editorial processes of those responsible when proof of "actual malice" is required for recovery. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. "Public figure" principle in libel cases are discussed. Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc. 443 U.S. 157 (1979).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Defamation law of Wisconsin. Brody, 65 MLR 505 (1982).
Article I, §3 - ANNOT. Limitations on damages awarded public officials in defamation suits. Kampen, 1972 WLR 574.
Article I, §3 - ANNOT.
A Misplaced Focus: Libel Law and Wisconsin's Distinction Between Media and Nonmedia Defendants. Maguire. 2004 WLR 191.
Article I, §4 Right to assemble and petition. Section 4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.
Article I, §4 - ANNOT. A narrowly drawn anti-cruising ordinance did not violate the right to assemble or travel. Scheunemann v. City of West Bend, 179 Wis. 2d 469, 507 N.W.2d 163 (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §4 - ANNOT. The right to intrastate travel, including the right to move about one's neighborhood in an automobile, is fundamental, but infringements on the right are not subject to strict scrutiny. Cruising ordinances, reasonable in time, place, and manner, do not violate this right. Brandmiller v. Arreola, 199 Wis. 2d 528, 544 N.W.2d 849 (1996), 93-2842.
Article I, §4 - ANNOT. The legislature cannot prohibit an individual from entering the capitol or its grounds. 59 Atty. Gen. 8.
Article I, §4 - ANNOT. Section 947.06, Stats. 1969, which prohibits unlawful assemblies, is constitutional. Cassidy v. Ceci, 320 F. Supp. 223.
Article I, §4 - ANNOT.
Wisconsin, a Constitutional Right to Intrastate Travel, and Anti-Cruising Ordinances. Mode. 78 MLR 735.
Article I, §5 Trial by jury; verdict in civil cases. Section 5. [As amended Nov. 1922] The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all cases in the manner prescribed by law. Provided, however, that the legislature may, from time to time, by statute provide that a valid verdict, in civil cases, may be based on the votes of a specified number of the jury, not less than five-sixths thereof. [1919 J.R. 58; 1921 J.R. 17 A; 1921 c. 504; vote Nov. 1922]
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. Note: See also the notes to Article I, Section 7—Jury Trial and Juror Qualifications for notes relating to jury trials in criminal cases.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. When a juror is struck after the trial has commenced, a litigant cannot be required to proceed with 11 jurors in a civil case. The trial court must declare a mistrial or grant a nonsuit with the right to plead over. It was error to grant a nonsuit and then direct a verdict for the defendant because a plaintiff refused to continue with 11 jurors. State ex rel. Polk v. Johnson, 47 Wis. 2d 207, 177 N.W.2d 122.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. Neither the constitution, statutes, or common law affords the right to trial by jury in a will contest. Estate of Elvers, 48 Wis. 2d 17, 179 N.W.2d 881.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. The requirement that a defendant prepay jury fees in a civil traffic forfeiture action is constitutional. State v. Graf, 72 Wis. 2d 179, 240 N.W.2d 387.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. Requiring the payment of a jury fee did not violate the right to a trial by jury. County of Portage v. Steinpreis, 104 Wis. 2d 466, 312 N.W.2d 731 (1981).
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. The right to 12-member jury can only be waived personally by the defendant. State v. Cooley, 105 Wis. 2d 642, 315 N.W.2d 369 (Ct. App. 1981).
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. The right to a jury trial does not extend to equitable actions. However defendants who are required to plead legal counterclaims in equitable actions or lose those claims are entitled to a jury trial of their claims. Green Spring Farms v. Spring Green Farms, 172 Wis. 2d 28, 492 N.W.2d 392 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. Use of collateral estoppel to prevent a civil defendant from testifying that he did not commit an act when in an earlier criminal trial the defendant was convicted by a jury of committing the act did not deny the defendant's right to a jury. Michelle T. v. Crozier, 173 Wis. 2d 681, 495 N.W.2d 327 (1993).
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. When collateral estoppel compels raising a counterclaim in an equitable action, that compulsion does not result in the waiver of the right to a jury trial. Norwest Bank v. Plourde, 185 Wis. 2d 377, 518 N.W.2d 265 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. There is neither a statutory nor a constitutional right to have all parties identified to a jury, but as a procedural rule the court should in all cases apprise the jurors of the names of all the parties. Stoppleworth v. Refuse Hideaway, Inc. 200 Wis. 2d 512, 546 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1996), 93-3182.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. A party has a constitutional right to have a statutory claim tried to a jury when: 1) the cause of action created by the statute existed, was known, or recognized at common law at the time of the adoption of the Wisconsin Constitution in 1848; and 2) the action was regarded as at law in 1848. Village Food & Liquor Mart v. H & S Petroleum, Inc. 2002 WI 92, 254 Wis. 2d 478, 647 N.W.2d 177, 00-2493.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. This section distinguishes the respective roles of judge and jury. It does not curtail the legislative prerogative to limit actions temporally or monetarily. Maurin v. Hall, 2004 WI 100, 274 Wis. 2d 28, 682 N.W.2d 866, 00-0072.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. While a defendant has a right to a jury trial in a civil case, there is no vested right under art. I, sec. 5, to the manner or time in which that right may be exercised or waived. These are merely procedural matters to be determined by law. Phelps v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin, Inc. 2005 WI 85, 282 Wis. 2d 69, 698 N.W.2d 643, 03-0580.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. In order to deem the Village Food test satisfied, there need not be specific identity between the violation at bar and an 1848 cause of action, so long as there was an 1848 action that only differs slightly and is essentially a counterpart to the current cause. To the extent that the 1849 statutes recognize broad causes of action for civil forfeitures, they are insufficient to support a demand for a 12 person jury in every forfeiture action. Dane County v. McGrew, 2005 WI 130, 285 Wis. 2d 519, 699 N.W.2d 890, 03-1794. See also State v. Schweda. 2007 WI 100, 303 Wis. 2d 353, 736 N.W.2d 49, 05-1507.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. A party's waiver of the right of trial by jury need not be a waiver in the strictest sense of that word, that is, an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Instead, a party may waive the right of trial by jury by failing to assert the right timely or by violating a law setting conditions on the party's exercise of the jury trial right. Rao v. WMA Securities, Inc. 2008 WI 73, 310 Wis. 2d 623, 752 N.W.2d 220, 06-0813.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. It lies within the circuit court's discretion to determine the appropriate procedure for deciding factual issues in default judgment cases and that the defaulting party therefore has no right of trial by jury. The circuit court did not violate the defendant's right of trial by jury under Art. I, s. 5 when it denied the defendant's motion for a jury trial on the issue of damages. The defendant waived its right of trial by jury in the manner set forth in ss. 804.12 and 806.02 by violating the circuit court's discovery order and by incurring a judgment by default. Rao v. WMA Securities, Inc. 2008 WI 73, 310 Wis. 2d 623, 752 N.W.2d 220, 06-0813.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT. A jury trial is not constitutionally required in the adjudicative phase of a state juvenile court delinquency proceeding. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528.
Article I, §5 - ANNOT.
Juror intoxication is not an external influence about which jurors may testify to impeach a verdict. Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987).
Article I, §6 Excessive bail; cruel punishments. Section 6. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor shall excessive fines be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Imposition of a 3-year sentence as a repeater was not cruel and unusual even though the present offense only involved the stealing of 2 boxes of candy, which carried a maximum sentence of 6 months. Hanson v. State, 48 Wis. 2d 203, 179 N.W.2d 909.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. It was not cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a defendant to 25 years for armed robbery when the maximum was 30 years, when by stipulation the court took into consideration 5 other uncharged armed robberies. Mallon v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 185, 181 N.W.2d 364.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Current standards of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment should not be applied in reviewing old sentences of long standing. State ex rel. Warren v. County Court, 54 Wis. 2d 613, 197 N.W.2d 1.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. A sentence is not discriminatory and excessive because it is substantially greater than that received by a codefendant. State v. Studler, 61 Wis. 2d 537, 213 N.W.2d 24.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Actions for the forfeiture of property that are commenced by the government and driven in whole or in part by a desire to punish may violate the guarantees against excessive punishment. State v. Hammad, 212 Wis. 2d 343, 569 N.W.2d 68 (Ct. App. 1997), 95-2669.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. A prison inmate does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in his body that permits a 4th amendment challenge to strip searches. Prisoners convicted of crimes are protected from cruel and unusual treatment that prohibits prison officials from utilizing strip searches to punish, harass, humiliate, or intimidate inmates regardless of their status in the institution. Al Ghashhiyah v. McCaughtry, 230 Wis. 2d 587, 602 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3020.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Cruel and unusual punishment extends to the denial of medical care if a serious medical need was ignored and prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmate's condition. A serious medical need means that the illness or injury is sufficiently serious to make the refusal uncivilized. Deliberate indifference implies an act so dangerous that the defendant's knowledge of the risk of harm from the resulting act can be inferred. Cody v. Dane County, 2001 WI App 60, 242 Wis. 2d 173, 625 N.W.2d 630, 00-0549.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. The defendant's life expectancy, coupled with a lengthy sentence, while perhaps guaranteeing that the defendant will spend the balance of his or her life in prison, does not have to be taken into consideration by the circuit court. If the circuit court chooses to consider a defendant's life expectancy, it must explain, on the record, how the defendant's life expectancy fits into the sentencing objectives. State v. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181, 276 Wis. 2d 224, 688 N.W.2d 20, 03-2974.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. In addressing whether a sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and was excessive, a court looks to whether the sentence was so excessive and unusual, and so disproportionate to the offense committed, as to shock public sentiment and violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under the circumstances. State v. Davis, 2005 WI App 98, 698 N.W.2d 823, 281 Wis. 2d 118, 04-1163.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. A sentence to life without the possibility of parole for a crime committed by a fourteen-year-old does not per se violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The differences between children and adults and between younger and older juveniles do not compel the conclusion that life without parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Ninham, 2009 WI App 64, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ____ N.W.2d ___, 08-1139.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Paddling students is not cruel and unusual punishment. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. A defendant's life sentence was not cruel and unusual when the defendant's 3 property crime felony convictions subjected him to a recidivist penalty. Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. A prison term of 40 years and fine of $20,000 for possession and sale of 9 ounces of marijuana was not cruel and unusual punishment. Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. The excessive fines clause of U.S. Constitution does not apply to civil punitive damage awards in actions between private parties. Browning-Ferris v. Kelco Disposal, 492 U.S. 257, 106 L. Ed. 2d 219 (1989).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Exposure to an unreasonable risk of serious damage to future health is a basis for a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment. Risk from environmental tobacco smoke was a basis for a cause of action. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. A sentence of 25 years to life in prison, imposed for the offense of felony grand theft under the California three strikes law, is not grossly disproportionate and therefore does not violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 155 L. Ed. 2d 108, 123 S. Ct. 1179 (2003).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Persons confined in the central state hospital under ss. 51.20, 51.37, 971.14, 971.17, and 975.06 are being subjected to punishment within the meaning of the cruel and unusual punishment clause. Flakes v. Percy, 511 F. Supp. 1325 (1981).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. A prisoner has no liberty interest in avoiding transfer to any prison, whether within or without the state. Berdine v. Sullivan, 161 F. Supp. 2d 972 (2001).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Incarcerating a person beyond the termination of his or her sentence without penological justification violates the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when it is the product of deliberate indifference. To comply with due process, prison officials cannot ignore an inmate's request to recalculate his or her sentence and must place some procedure in place to address such requests. Russell v. Lazar, 300 F. Supp 2d 316 (2004).
Article I, §6 - ANNOT. Solitary confinement; punishment within the letter of the law or psychological torture? Thoenig, 1972 WLR 223.
Article I, §6 - ANNOT.
Appellate sentence review. 1976 WLR 655.
Article I, §7 Rights of accused. Section 7. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to meet the witnesses face to face; to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf; and in prosecutions by indictment, or information, to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed; which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.
CONFRONTATION AND COMPULSORY PROCESS
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in one's behalf does not require that the state be successful in attempting to subpoena the defendant's witnesses, but only that the process issue and that a diligent, good-faith attempt be made by the officer to secure service of the process. Since the primary responsibility for having witnesses present in court rests with the parties and not the court, a motion for a continuance to obtain the attendance of witnesses is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed upon appeal or review except when it is clearly shown that there has been an abuse of discretion. Elam v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 383, 184 N.W.2d 176.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An accused should be allowed to cross-examine to discover why an accomplice has pleaded guilty and has testified against him. Champlain v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 751, 193 N.W.2d 868.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a witness is not available for trial and when the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that witness, former testimony, including that given at a preliminary examination, may be introduced without violating either constitutional mandates or the hearsay rule of evidence. State v. Lindsey, 53 Wis. 2d 759, 193 N.W.2d 699.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Because there was no showing that the witness was permanently ill, the defendant was denied the constitutional right to confrontation by the court allowing the use of the witness' deposition. Sheehan v. State, 65 Wis. 2d 757, 223 N.W.2d 600.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whether a witness's refusal on 5th amendment grounds to answer otherwise permissible questions violates the defendant's right to confrontation must be determined from the whole record. West v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 390, 246 N.W.2d 675.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Admission of double hearsay did not violate defendant's right to confront witnesses. State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis. 2d 425, 247 N.W.2d 80.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Introduction into evidence of a victim's hospital records unsupported by testimony of the treating physician did not violate the defendant's right of confrontation and cross-examination. State v. Olson, 75 Wis. 2d 575, 250 N.W.2d 12.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial court did not deny the defendant's right of confrontation by forbidding cross-examination of the sole prosecution witness as to the witness's history of mental illness, since no showing was made that the history was relevant to the witness's credibility. The right of confrontation is also limited by s. 904.03 if the probative value of the desired cross-examination is outweighed by the possibility of unfair or undue prejudice. Chapin v. State, 78 Wis. 2d 346, 254 N.W.2d 286.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The defendant's right of confrontation was not violated when preliminary examination testimony of a deceased witness was admitted at trial when the defendant had unlimited opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the testimony involved the same issues and parties as at trial. Nabbefeld v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 515, 266 N.W.2d 292 (1978).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant's right to compulsory process did not require admission of an unstipulated polygraph exam. Lhost v. State, 85 Wis. 2d 620, 271 N.W.2d 121 (1978).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial court did not err in favoring a witness's right against self-incrimination over the compulsory process rights of the defendant. State v. Harris, 92 Wis. 2d 836, 285 N.W.2d 917 (Ct. App. 1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The state's failure to use the Uniform Extradition Act to compel the presence of a doctor whose hearsay testimony was introduced denied the accused's right to confront witnesses and violated the hearsay rule, but the error was harmless. State v. Zellmer, 100 Wis. 2d 136, 301 N.W.2d 209 (1981).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Medical records, as explained to the jury by a medical student, were sufficient to support a conviction and did not deny the right of confrontation. Hagenkord v. State, 100 Wis. 2d 452, 302 N.W.2d 421 (1981).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial court properly denied a request to present a defense witness who refused to answer relevant questions during an offer of proof cross-examination. State v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis. 2d 514, 302 N.W.2d 810 (1981).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Admission of a statement by a deceased co-conspirator did not violate the right of confrontation. State v. Dorcey, 103 Wis. 2d 152, 307 N.W.2d 612 (1981).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a witness died after testifying at a preliminary examination, admission of the transcript of the testimony did not deny the right of confrontation. Constitutional standards for admission of hearsay evidence are discussed. State v. Bauer, 109 Wis. 2d 204, 325 N.W.2d 857 (1982).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Guidelines are set for admission of testimony of hypnotized witnesses. State v. Armstrong, 110 Wis. 2d 555, 329 N.W.2d 386 (1983).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Cross-examination, not exclusion, is the proper tool for challenging the weight and credibility of accomplice testimony. State v. Nerison, 136 Wis. 2d 37, 401 N.W.2d 1 (1987).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant waives the right of confrontation by failing to object to the trial court's finding of witness unavailability. State v. Gove, 148 Wis. 2d 936, 437 N.W.2d 218 (1989).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A prosecutor who obtained an incriminating statement from a defendant is obliged to honor a subpoena and to testify at a suppression hearing if there is a reasonable probability that testifying will lead to relevant evidence. State v. Wallis, 149 Wis. 2d 534, 439 N.W.2d 590 (Ct. App. 1989).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant had no confrontation clause rights as to hearsay at a pretrial motion hearing. The trial court could rely on hearsay in making its decision. State v. Frambs, 157 Wis. 2d 700, 460 N.W.2d 811 (Ct. App. 1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Allegations of professional misconduct against the prosecution's psychiatric expert initially referred to the prosecutor's office but immediately transferred to a special prosecutor for investigation and possible criminal proceedings were properly excluded as the subject of cross-examination of the expert due to the lack of a logical connection between the expert and prosecutor necessary to suggest bias. State v. Lindh, 161 Wis. 2d 324, 468 N.W.2d 168 (1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The ability of a child witness to speak the truth or communicate intelligently are matters of credibility for the jury, not questions of competency to be determined by the judge. State v. Hanna, 163 Wis. 2d 193, 471 N.W.2d 238 (Ct. App. 1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a witness's "past-recollection recorded statement" was admitted after the witness testified and was found "unavailable" as a result of having no current memory of the murder in question, there was an opportunity for cross-examination and the right to confrontation was not violated. State v. Jenkins, 168 Wis. 2d 175, 483 N.W.2d 262 (1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant charged with trespass to a medical facility is entitled to compulsory process to determine if any patients present at the time of the alleged incident had relevant evidence. State v. Migliorino, 170 Wis. 2d 576, 489 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. To be entitled to an in camera inspection of privileged records, a criminal defendant must show the sought after evidence is relevant and helpful to the defense or necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence. Failure of the record's subject to agree to inspection is grounds for sanctions, including suppressing the record subject's testimony. State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993). See also State v. Speese, 191 Wis. 2d 205, 528 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1995.)
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An indigent may be entitled to have a court compel the attendance of an expert witness. It may be error to deny a request for an expert to testify on the issue of suggestive interview techniques used with a young child witness if there is a "particularized need" for the expert. State v. Kirschbaum, 195 Wis. 2d 11, 535 N.W.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-0899.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession with a proper limiting instruction when the confession was redacted to eliminate any reference to the defendant's existence. State v. Mayhall, 195 Wis. 2d 53, 535 N.W.2d 473 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-0727.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An accused has the right to be present at trial, but the right may be waived by misconduct or consent. A formal on-the-record waiver is favored, but not required. State v. Divanovic, 200 Wis. 2d 210, 546 N.W.2d 501 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0881.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to confrontation is not violated when the court precludes a defendant from presenting evidence that is irrelevant or immaterial. State v. McCall, 202 Wis. 2d 29, 549 N.W.2d 418 (1996), 94-1213.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Evidence of 911 calls, including tapes and transcripts of the calls, is not inadmissible hearsay. Admission does not violate the right to confront witnesses. State v. Ballos, 230 Wis. 2d 495, 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1905.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Confrontation promotes the reliability of evidence by rigorously testing it in an adversarial proceeding before the jury. A defendant must have the opportunity to meaningfully cross-examine witnesses, and the right to present a defense may in some cases require the admission of testimony that would otherwise be excluded under applicable rules of evidence. State v. Dunlap, 2000 WI App 251, 239 Wis. 2d 423, 620 N.W.2d 398, 99-2189.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. For a defendant to establish a constitutional right to the admissibility of proffered expert testimony, the defendant must satisfy a two-part inquiry determining whether the evidence is clearly central to the defense and the exclusion of the evidence is arbitrary and disproportionate to the purpose of the rule of exclusion, so that exclusion undermines fundamental elements of the defendant's defense. State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, 252 Wis. 2d 499, 643 N.W.2d 277, 00-2830.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Cross-examination of a highly qualified witness, who is familiar with the procedures used in performing the tests whose results are offered as evidence, who supervises or reviews the work of the testing analyst, and who renders his or her own expert opinion is sufficient to protect a defendant's right to confrontation, despite the fact that the expert was not the person who performed the mechanics of the original tests. State v. Williams, 2002 WI 58, 253 Wis. 2d 99, 644 N.W.2d 919, 00-3065.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When the privilege against self-incrimination prevents a defendant from directly questioning a witness about his or her testimony, it may be necessary to prohibit that witness from testifying or to strike portions of the testimony if the witness has already testified. A defendant's right of confrontation is denied in each instance that potentially relevant evidence is excluded. The question is whether the defendant could effectively cross-examine the witness. State v. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, 257 Wis. 2d. 203, 651 N.W.2d 12, 01-1828.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a witness's memory, credibility, or bias was not at issue at trial, the inability of the defendant to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing with questions that went to memory, credibility, or bias did not present an unusual circumstance that undermined the reliability of the witness's testimony. Admission of the unavailable witness's preliminary hearing testimony did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation. State v. Norman, 2003 WI 72, 262 Wis. 2d 506, 664 N.W.2d 97, 01-3303.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A violation of the confrontation clause does not result in automatic reversal, but rather is subject to harmless error analysis. State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, 263 Wis. 2d 434, 666 N.W.2d 485, 01-1746.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Prior testimony may be admitted against a criminal defendant only when that defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness giving that testimony. State v. Hale, 2005 WI 7, 277 Wis. 2d 593, 691 N.W.2d 593, 03-0417.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Unavailability for confrontation purposes requires both that the hearsay declarant not appear at the trial and, critically, that the state make a good-faith effort to produce that declarant at trial. If there is a remote possibility that affirmative measures might produce the declarant, the obligation of good faith may demand their effectuation. The lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness is a question of reasonableness. State v. King, 2005 WI App 224, 287 Wis. 2d 756, 706 N.W.2d 181, 04-2694
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, laid out 3 formulations of the core class of testimonial statements. 1) ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent, such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially; 2) extrajudicial statements contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions; and 3) statements made under circumstances that would lead an objective witness to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. State v. Savanh, 2005 WI App 245, 287 Wis. 2d 876, 707 N.W.2d 549, 04-2583.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Casual remarks on the telephone to an acquaintance plainly were not testimonial. That an informant overheard the remarks does not transform the informant into a government officer or change the casual remark into a formal statement. Statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy by their nature are not testimonial. State v. Savanh, 2005 WI App 245, 287 Wis. 2d 876, 707 N.W.2d 549, 04-2583.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. In applying the 3-part test under Crawford and Savanh, statements volunteered to officers at the scene of a traumatic event absent any interrogation or other police prompting generated by the desire of the prosecution or police to seek evidence against a particular suspect were found not to be testimonial. State v. Searcy, 2006 WI App 8, 288 Wis. 2d 804, 709 N.W.2d 497, 04-2827.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A witness's claimed inability to remember earlier statements or the events surrounding those statements does not implicate the requirements of the Confrontation Clause if the witness is present at trial, takes an oath to testify truthfully, and answers the questions put to him or her during cross-examination. In contrast to cases when the witness either invokes the 5th amendment and remains silent or refuses to be sworn in or testify, when a witness takes the stand, agrees to testify truthfully, and answers the questions posed by defense counsel, defense counsel is able to test the witness's recollection, motive, and interest and hold his or her testimony up so that the jury can decide whether it is worthy of belief. State v. Rockette, 2006 WI App 103, 294 Wis. 2d 611, 718 N.W.2d 269, 04-2732.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When officers did not go to the victim's house looking for evidence with which to prosecute the defendant, and, after they arrived their focus was not on building a case against the victim but, rather, trying to ensure the safety of the defendant and her daughter, and other members of the community the the out-of-court declarations of the victim and her daughter were not testimonial. State v. Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, 295 Wis. 2d 801, 722 N.W.2d 136, 05-1265.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The accused does not have an unfettered right to offer testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under the standard rules of evidence. When evidence is irrelevant or not offered for a proper purpose, the exclusion of that evidence does not violate a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. There is no abridgement on the accused's right to present a defense so long as the rules of evidence used to exclude the evidence offered are not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes for which they are designed. State v. Muckerheide, 2007 WI 5, 298 Wis. 2d 553, 725 N.W.2d 930, 05-0081.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Despite the state constitution's more direct guarantee to defendants of the right to meet their accusers face to face, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has generally interpreted the state and federal rights of confrontation to be coextensive. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), does not represent a shift in confrontation-clause jurisprudence that overturns state and federal precedents permitting a witness to testify from behind a barrier upon a particularized showing of necessity. State v. Vogelsberg, 2006 WI App 228, 297 Wis. 2d 519, 724 N.W.2d 649, 05-1293.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The confrontation clause places no constraints on the use of prior testimonial statements when the declarant appears for cross-examination. It made no difference in this case where oral statements of a witness were not disclosed until a subsequent police witness testified whether the burden was on the state or the defendant to show that the witness was available for further cross-examination after the court told the witness he could step down. The witness testified and was cross-examined concerning his statements to the police; therefore, defendant's right to confrontation was not violated. State v. Nelis, 2007 WI 58, 300 Wis. 2d 415, 733 N.W.2d 619, 05-1920.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. In determining whether a statement is testimonial under Crawford, a broad definition of testimonial is required to guarantee that the right to confrontation is preserved. The government does not need to be involved in the creation of a testimonial statement. A statement is testimonial if a reasonable person in the position of the declarant would objectively foresee that his or her statement might be used in the investigation or prosecution of a crime. It does not matter if a crime has already been committed or not. Statements made to loved ones or acquaintances are not the memorialized type of statements that Crawford addressed. State v. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, 299 Wis. 2d 267, 727 N.W.2d 518, 04-2481. See also Giles v. California, 554 U.S. ___, 171 L. Ed. 2d 488, 128 S. Ct. 2678 (2008).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine is adopted in Wisconsin. Essentially, the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine states that an accused can have no complaint based on the right to confrontation about the use against him or her of a declarant's statement if it was the accused's wrongful conduct that prevented any cross-examination of the declarant. State v. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, 299 Wis. 2d 267, 727 N.W.2d 518, 04-2481.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. In applying the the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine the circuit court must determine whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant caused the witness's unavailability, thereby forfeiting his or her right to confrontation. While requiring the court to decide the evidence the very question for which the defendant is on trial may seem troublesome, equitable considerations demand such a result. State v. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, 299 Wis. 2d 267, 727 N.W.2d 518, 04-2481.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing announced in Jensen, the statement of an absent witness is admissible against a defendant who the trial court determines by a preponderance of the evidence caused the witness's absence. When a jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intimidated the person who was a witness, the defendant has forfeited, by his or her own misconduct, the right to confront that witness. State v. Rodriguez, 2007 WI App 252, 306 Wis. 2d 129, 743 N.W.2d 460, 05-1265.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Inasmuch as a criminal defendant does not have an unqualified right to require the appearance of any persons as witnesses for trial, and a defendant's right to compulsory process at trial must satisfy certain standards, the compulsory process rights of a defendant at the preliminary stage of criminal proceedings also must be subject to reasonable restrictions. The court declines to expand a criminal defendant's compulsory process rights to encompass a right to subpoena police reports and other non-privileged investigatory materials for examination and copying in anticipation of a preliminary hearing. State v. Schaefer, 2008 WI 25, 308 Wis. 2d 279, 746 N.W.2d 457, 06-1826.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. By the judge's reading at a criminal trial the transcript of a hearing at which the defendant appeared to be intoxicated, resulting in additional charges, the jury was essentially provided with the judge's and the prosecutor's conclusions at the hearing about the defendant's guilt with the circuit court and the prosecutor essentially testifying against the defendant, denying the right to cross-examination. State v. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, 310 Wis. 2d 138, 754 N.W.2d 77, 06-1847.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Affidavits verifying nontestimonial bank records in compliance with s. 891.24 are nontestimonial and their admission does not violate the confrontation clause. The affidavits fulfill a statutory procedure for verifying nontestimonial bank records and do not supply substantive evidence of guilt. State v. Doss, 2008 WI 93, 312 Wis. 2d 570, 754 N.W.2d 150, 06-2254.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When required by the right effectively to present a defense, the state, having authority to do so, in the exercise of sound discretion must issue, and for an indigent pay the costs of, compulsory process to obtain the attendance of witnesses on behalf of probationers and parolees at revocation proceedings. 63 Atty. Gen. 176.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Admission into evidence of a transcript of preliminary hearing testimony did not violate confrontation rights when the witness was, in effect, cross-examined at the hearing. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Introduction of an accomplice's confession for rebuttal purposes, not hearsay, did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights. Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409 (1985).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The confrontation clause does not require a showing of unavailability as a condition of admission of out-of-court statements of a non-testifying co-conspirator. United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 (1986).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The confrontation clause does not require the defendant to have access to confidential child abuse reports. Due process requires the trial court to undertake an in camera inspection of the file to determine whether it contains material exculpatory evidence. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession violates confrontation rights, even though the defendant's confession was also admitted. Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186 (1987).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The confrontation clause does not require that the defendant be permitted to be present at a competency hearing of a child witnesses as long as the defendant is provided the opportunity for full and effective cross-examination at trial. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The confrontation clause prohibits the placement of a screen between a child witness and the defendant. Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. If a state makes an adequate showing of necessity, it may use a special procedure, such as one-way closed-circuit television to transmit a child witness' testimony to court without face-to-face confrontation with the defendant. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 111 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. In a joint trial, the confession of one defendant naming the other defendant that was read with the word "deleted" replacing the second defendant's name violated the second defendant's right of confrontation. Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 140 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1998).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The rights to be present at trial and to confront witnesses are not violated by a prosecutor's comment in closing argument that the defendant had the opportunity to hear all witnesses and then tailor his testimony accordingly. Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61, 146 L. Ed. 2d 47 (2000).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The 6th amendment confrontation clause demands unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Whatever else the term testimonial covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. "Testimonial statements" includes at a minimum prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and to police interrogations. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 158 L. Ed 2d 177, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Statements are nontestimonial under Crawford when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. A conversation that begins as an interrogation to determine the need for emergency assistance can evolve into testimonial statements. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224, 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant does not forfeit the right to confront a witness when a judge determines that a wrongful act by the defendant made the witness unavailable to testify at trial. The "forfeiture by wrongdoing" doctrine applies only when the defendant engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness. The requirement of intent means that the exception applies only if the defendant has in mind the particular purpose of making the witness unavailable. Giles v. California, 554 U.S. ___, 171 L. Ed. 2d 488, 128 S. Ct. 2678 (2008).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A finding of unavailability of a witness due to mental illness, made on the basis of a confused and stale record, deprived the defendant of the right to confront witnesses, but the error was harmless. Burns v. Clusen, 599 F. Supp. 1438 (1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The use of a child victim's statements to a psychologist under s. 908.03 (4) violated the accused sexual assaulter's confrontation rights. Nelson v. Ferrey, 688 F. Supp. 1304 (E. D. Wis. 1988).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial court's wholesale exclusion of the defendant's proffered expert and lay testimony regarding post-traumatic stress disorder from the guilt phase of a murder trial, without valid state justification, violated the defendant's right to present a defense and to testify in her own behalf. Morgan v. Krenke, 72 F. Supp. 2d 980 (1999).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. State v. Thomas: Face to Face With Coy and Craig — Constitutional Invocation of Wisconsin's Child-Witness Protection Statute. 1990 WLR 1613.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A Bad Case of Indigestion: Internalizing Changes in the Right to Confrontation After Crawford v. Washington Both Nationally and in Wisconsin. Kinnally. 89 MLR 625 (2005).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT.
Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause. Biskupic. Wis. Law. May 2004.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Note: See also the notes to Article I, Section 8—Self-incrimination.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant is entitled to the presence of counsel at a post-warrant lineup, but the attorney need not participate or object, and need not be the ultimate trial counsel. Wright v. State, 46 Wis. 2d 75, 175 N.W.2d 646.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A city attorney should not be appointed defense counsel in a state case in which city police are involved unless the defendant, being fully informed, requests the appointment. Karlin v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 452, 177 N.W.2d 318.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A conference in chambers between defendant's counsel and the prosecutor in regard to a plea agreement, but without the defendant's presence, was not violative of his constitutional rights and not a manifest injustice since the defendant had the benefit of counsel both during the entry of his plea and at the sentencing and the defendant on the record expressly acquiesced in the plea agreement. Kruse v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 460, 177 N.W.2d 322.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A disciplinary action against an attorney is a civil proceeding. An indigent attorney is not entitled to the appointment of an attorney. State v. Hildebrand, 48 Wis. 2d 73, 179 N.W.2d 892.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An indigent defendant is not entitled to a substitution of appointed counsel when he is dissatisfied with the one appointed. Peters v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 682, 184 N.W.2d 826.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. ABA standards relating to the duty of defense counsel while approved by the court, do not automatically prove incompetency or ineffectiveness if violated. State v. Harper, 57 Wis. 2d 543, 205 N.W.2d 1.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An arrestee has no right to demand that counsel be present while a breathalyzer test is administered. State v. Driver, 59 Wis. 2d 35, 207 N.W.2d 850.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant has no right to counsel or to be present when photographs are shown to a witness. The right to counsel exists only at or after the initiation of criminal proceedings. Holmes v. State, 59 Wis. 2d 488, 208 N.W.2d 815.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. While it is not desirable, it is not error, to appoint a city attorney from another city, not connected with the testifying police, as defense attorney. Hebel v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 325, 210 N.W.2d 695.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A person is not entitled to counsel at a lineup prior to the filing of a formal charge, but prosecution may not be delayed while a suspect is in custody merely for the purpose of holding a lineup without counsel. State v. Taylor, 60 Wis. 2d 506, 210 N.W.2d 873.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A conviction was not overturned because of the absence of counsel at an informal confrontation where the defendant was identified by the victim. Jones v. State, 63 Wis. 2d 97, 216 N.W.2d 224.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a conflict arises in dual representation, a defendant must be granted a vacation of sentence and new hearing because a conflict at sentencing per se renders counsel representation ineffective and actual prejudice need not be shown. Hall v. State, 63 Wis. 2d 304, 217 N.W.2d 352.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Defense counsel's failure to cross-examine the state's principal witness at trial did not constitute ineffective representation when cross-examination had proved fruitless at the preliminary. Krebs v. State, 64 Wis. 2d 407, 219 N.W.2d 355.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The duty to appoint counsel is upon the judicial system as part of the superintending power of the judicial system. When the appointment of counsel for indigent convicted persons for parole and probation revocation proceedings will be recurrent and statewide, the power of appointment will be exercised by the supreme court. State ex rel. Fitas v. Milwaukee County, 65 Wis. 2d 130, 221 N.W.2d 902.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial judge must unconditionally and unequivocably demonstrate in the record that the defendant intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly waived the constitutional right to counsel, whether or not the defendant is indigent. Keller v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 502, 249 N.W.2d 773.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a state agency seeks to enforce its orders through the coercion of imprisonment for contempt, the full constitutional right to counsel arises. Ferris v. State ex rel. Maass, 75 Wis. 2d 542, 249 N.W.2d 789.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. One charged with a crime carrying a penalty of incarceration has the full constitutional right to counsel, regardless of whether incarceration is ordered. State ex rel. Winnie v. Harris, 75 Wis. 2d 547, 249 N.W.2d 791.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The mere fact that one attorney represents 2 defendants charged in the same crime is not sufficient evidence of inadequate representation. The defendant has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that an actual and operative conflict existed. Harrison v. State, 78 Wis. 2d 189, 254 N.W.2d 220.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant has no right to be actively represented in the courtroom both by self and by counsel. Moore v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 285, 265 N.W.2d 540 (1978).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The test to determine if the denial of a continuance acted to deny a defendant either due process or effective assistance of counsel is discussed. State v. Wollman, 86 Wis. 2d 459, 273 N.W.2d 225 (1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel does not extend to non-lawyer representatives. State v. Kasuboski, 87 Wis. 2d 407, 275 N.W.2d 101 (Ct. App. 1978).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Withdrawal of a guilty plea on the grounds of ineffective representation by trial counsel is discussed. State v. Rock, 92 Wis. 2d 554, 285 N.W.2d 739 (1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant's request on the morning of trial to represent himself was properly denied as untimely. Hamiel v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 656, 285 N.W.2d 639 (1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A prerequisite to a claim on appeal of ineffective trial representation is preservation of trial counsel's testimony at a postconviction hearing in which the representation is challenged. State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial court did not err in refusing the defendant's request on the 2nd day of trial to withdraw a waiver of the right to counsel. Self-representation is discussed. Pickens v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 549, 292 N.W.2d 601 (1980).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel did not preclude incarceration for a second operating while intoxicated conviction when the defendant was not represented by counsel in proceedings leading to the first conviction, since the first offense was a civil forfeiture case. State v. Novak, 107 Wis. 2d 31, 318 N.W.2d 364 (1982).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the heat-of-passion defense in a murder case when a wife who had been maltreated during a 23-year marriage intentionally killed her husband while he lay sleeping. State v. Felton, 110 Wis. 2d 485, 329 N.W.2d 161 (1983).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant's uncorroborated allegations will not support a claim of ineffective representation when counsel is unavailable to rebut the claim of ineffectiveness. State v. Lukasik, 115 Wis. 2d 134, 340 N.W.2d 62 (Ct. App. 1983).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Effective assistance of counsel was denied when the defense attorney did not properly inform the client of the personal right to accept a plea offer. State v. Ludwig, 124 Wis. 2d 600, 369 N.W.2d 722 (1985).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a trial court fails to make adequate inquiry into a defendant's last-minute request to replace his or her attorney, the right to counsel is adequately protected by a retrospective hearing at which the defendant may present his or her own testimony. State v. Lomax, 146 Wis. 2d 356, 432 N.W.2d 89 (1988).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The 5th and 6th amendment rights to counsel and Edwards v. Arizona are discussed. State v. McNeil, 155 Wis. 2d 24, 454 N.W.2d 742 (1990). See also the note hereunder citing McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 115 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1991). See also Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 149 LEd 2d 321 (2001).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Defense counsel's absence at the return of the jury verdict without the defendant's consent and the failure to poll the jury were grounds for automatic reversal. State v. Behnke, 155 Wis. 2d 796, 456 N.W.2d 610 (1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a defendant accepts counsel, the decision to assert or waive a constitutional right is delegated to the attorney. The failure of the defendant to object to the attorney's waiver, is waiver. State v. Wilkens, 159 Wis. 2d 618, 465 N.W.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. There is a two-prong test for ineffective counsel: 1) trial counsel was ineffective; and 2) the defense was prejudiced so that absent error the result would have been different. State v. Wilkens, 159 Wis. 2d 618, 465 N.W.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A court may disqualify the defendant's chosen counsel over the defendant's objection and waiver of the right to conflict-free representation when actual or a serious potential for a conflict of interest exists. State v. Miller, 160 Wis. 2d 646, 467 N.W.2d 118 (1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A determination of indigency by the public defender under s. 977.07 is not the end of the court 's inquiry into the need to appoint counsel. State v. Dean, 163 Wis. 2d 503, 471 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. To bring a claim of ineffective appellate counsel, defendant must petition the court that heard the appeal for a writ of habeas corpus. State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The question of ineffective counsel is whether there is a reasonable probability that a jury viewing the evidence untainted by counsel's errors would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. State v. Glass, 170 Wis. 2d 146, 488 N.W.2d 432 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defense attorney's ex parte petition to withdraw was improperly granted. A minimal due process hearing was required. State v. Batista, 171 Wis. 2d 690, 492 N.W.2d 354 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Absent a clear waiver of counsel and a clear demonstration of a defendant's ability to proceed pro se, courts are advised to mandate full representation by counsel. State v. Haste, 175 Wis. 2d 1, N.W.2d (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The proper test of attorney performance is reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Counsel is not required to have a total and complete knowledge of all criminal law, no matter how obscure. State v. Hubert, 181 Wis. 2d 333, 510 N.W.2d 799 (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Appellate counsel's closing of a file because of no merit without the defendant knowing of the right to disagree and compel a no merit report under s. 809.32 is ineffective assistance of counsel. A defendant must be informed of the right to appeal and to a no merit report, but need not be informed orally. State ex rel. Flores v. State, 183 Wis. 2d 587, 516 N.W.2d 362 (1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An appellate defendant represented by counsel has no right to have a pro se brief considered by the court when counsel has submitted a brief. State v. Debra A. E. 188 Wis. 2d 111, 523 N.W.2d 727 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The decision to poll the jury may be delegated to counsel. Waiver by counsel without showing that the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made by the defendant did not violate a constitutional right. State v. Jackson, 188 Wis. 2d 537, 525 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. If the same counsel represents co-defendants, the trial court must conduct an inquiry to determine whether the defendant waived the right to separate counsel. When an actual conflict of interest is found, specific prejudice need not be shown. If no inquiry is made by the trial court, the court of appeals will examine the record, reversing if an actual conflict of interest is found. State v. Dadas, 190 Wis. 2d 339, 526 N.W.2d 818 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The prejudice prong of the test for ineffective counsel was met when counsel failed to insure that a defense witness would appear without shackles. State v. Tatum, 191 Wis. 2d 548, 530 N.W.2d 407 (Ct. App. 1995).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A suspect's reference to an attorney who had previously or is presently representing the suspect in another matter is not a request for counsel requiring the cessation of questioning. State v. Jones, 192 Wis. 2d 78, 532 N.W.2d 79 (1995).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel and right to remain silent are the defendant's. An attorney, not requested by the defendant, could not compel the police to end questioning by stating that no questioning was to take place outside his presence. State v. Jones, 192 Wis. 2d 78, 532 N.W.2d 79 (1995).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant must assert the right to counsel in a timely manner. However, no waiver of counsel is presumed and a waiver must be clear and unequivocal. The state has the burden of overcoming the presumption. Mere inconvenience to the court is insufficient to deny the right to counsel. State v. Verdone, 195 Wis. 2d 476, 536 N.W.2d 172 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-3369.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentencing may be based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Erroneous advice regarding parole eligibility can form the basis for ineffective assistance. State v. Bentley, 195 Wis. 2d 580, 536 N.W.2d 202 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-3310.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A trial court's failure to conduct a hearing to determine if a defendant's waiver of counsel is knowingly made is harmless error absent a showing of prejudice. A trial court need not make a finding that a defendant is competent to proceed without counsel unless there is doubt that the defendant is competent to stand trial. State v. Kessig, 199 Wis. 2d 397, 544 N.W.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-1938.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. In certain situations a court may find that a defendant has waived counsel without having expressly done so. Waiver was found when the defendant constantly refused to cooperate with counsel while refusing to waive the right and when the court found the defendant's intent was to "delay, obfuscate and compound the process of justice." State v. Cummings, 199 Wis. 2d 721, 516 N.W.2d 406 (1996), 93-2445.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The test for ineffective assistance of counsel under the state constitution is the same as under the federal constitution. In such cases the burden is placed on the defendant to show that the deficient performance of counsel prejudiced the defense. State v. Sanchez, 201 Wis. 2d 219, 548 N.W.2d 69 (1996), 94-0208.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Read together, s. 809.32 (4) and 977.05 (4) (j) create a statutory, but not constitutional, right to counsel in petitions for review and cases before any court, provided counsel does not determine the appeal to be without merit. When counsel fails to timely file a petition for review, the defendant may petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the supreme court has the power to allow late filing. Schmelzer v. Murphy, 201 Wis. 2d 246, 548 N.W.2d 45 (1996), 95-1096.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whether counsel is deficient by not requesting the polling of individual jurors upon the return of a verdict depends on all the circumstances, not on whether counsel explained to the defendant the right to an individual polling. State v. Yang, 201 Wis. 2d 725, 549 N.W.2d 769 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0583.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest there must be an actual conflict that adversely affected the attorney's performance. Simultaneous representation of a criminal defendant and a witness in that case in an unrelated civil case resulted in an actual conflict. State v. Street, 202 Wis. 2d 533, 551 N.W.2d 830 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2242.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Counsel is not ineffective when the general theory of the defense is discussed with the defendant, and when based on that theory, counsel makes a strategic decision not to request a lesser-included instruction because it would be inconsistent with or harmful to the theory of the defense. State v. Eckert, 203 Wis. 2d 497, 553 N.W.2d 539 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1877.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a prosecutor elicits testimony that can only be contradicted by defense counsel or the defendant, if defense counsel could not reasonably foresee the dilemma and the defendant has decided not to testify, defense counsel must be permitted to testify. State v. Foy, 206 Wis. 2d 629, 557 N.W.2d 494 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0658.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Counsel was deficient when it failed to object at sentencing to a prosecutor's sentence recommendation after agreeing in a plea bargain to make no recommendation. The defendant was automatically prejudiced when the prosecutor materially and substantially breached the plea agreement. State v. Smith, 207 Wis. 2d 259, 558 N.W.2d 379 (1997), 94-3364.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whenever a defendant seeks to proceed pro se, a colloquy to determine whether the waiver is knowing and voluntary is required. The colloquy is to ensure that the defendant: 1) made a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel, 2) was aware of the difficulties and disadvantages of self-representation, 3) was aware of the seriousness of the charge or charges, and 4) was aware of the general range of the possible penalties. When there is no colloquy and post-conviction relief is requested, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing on the waiver and the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the waiver was knowingly made for the conviction to stand. State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997), 95-1938.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. There is a higher standard for determining competency to represent oneself than for competency to stand trial. The standard is based on the defendant's education, literacy, fluency in English, and any disability that may affect the ability to communicate a defense. When there is no pretrial finding of competency to proceed and post-conviction relief is sought, the court must determine if it can make a meaningful nunc pro tunc inquiry. If it cannot, or it finds that it can but the defendant was not competent, a new trial is required. State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997), 95-1938.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. It was ineffective assistance of counsel to advise a defendant to go to trial and lie rather than agree to a plea agreement. Despite the defendant's participation in fraud on the court, the defendant was entitled to vacation of his sentence and a return to pretrial status, although offering the prior proposed plea agreement was not required. State v. Fritz, 212 Wis. 2d 284, 569 N.W.2d 48 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1905.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a defendant proves ineffective assistance of counsel occurred at the pretrial stage, the defendant must be granted a new trial. State v. Lentowski, 212 Wis. 2d 849, 569 N.W.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2597.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An in-court identification subsequent to a lineup in violation of an accused's right to counsel is admissible only if the state carries the burden of showing that the in-court identification was based on observations of the suspect other than the lineup. State v. McMorris, 213 Wis. 2d 156, 570 N.W.2d 384 (1997), 95-2052.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A postconviction hearing pursuant to State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797, to preserve the testimony of trial counsel is required in every ineffective assistance of counsel case. State v. Curtis, 218 Wis. 2d 550, 582 N.W.2d 409 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2884.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Having disputed relevant portions of the presentence investigation at the sentencing hearing, it was trial counsel's duty to see that the disputes were fully resolved by a proper hearing. Failure to do so constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Anderson, 222 Wis. 2d 403, 588 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3070.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whether a defendant's motion for substitution of counsel, with an accompanying request for a continuation, should be granted depends on the balancing of several interests. State v. Wanta, 224 Wis. 2d 679, 592 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0318.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant's prejudicial deprivation of appellate counsel, be it the fault of the attorney or the appellate court, is properly remedied by a petition for habeas corpus in the supreme court. State ex rel. Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 225 Wis. 2d 446, 593 N.W.2d 48 (1999), 98-1534.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant who alleges counsel was ineffective by failing to take certain steps must show with specificity what the action, if taken, would have revealed and how the action would have affected the outcome. State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 594 N.W.2d 388 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-3217.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When defense counsel has appeared for and represented the state in the same case in which he or she later represents the defendant and no objection was made at trial, to prove a violation of the right to effective counsel, the defendant must show that counsel converted a potential conflict of interest into an actual conflict by knowingly failing to disclose the attorney's former prosecution of the defendant or representing the defendant in a manner that adversely affected the defendant's interests. State v. Love, 227 Wis. 2d 60, 594 N.W.2d 806 (1999), 97-2336. See also State v. Kalk, 2000 WI App 62, 234 Wis. 2d 98, 608 N.W.2d 98, 99-1164.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. There is a distinction between the consequences on appeal of a trial court error and the consequences of that same error when it is raised in an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel context. The fact that a preserved error could lead to automatic reversal does not mean the same result will be reached when the error was waived. State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999), 98-0273.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The defendant's assertion of the 6th amendment right to counsel was evident during interrogation when he asked whether the police officer thought he should have an attorney and if he could call a person known to the officer to be a criminal defense lawyer. State v. Hornung, 229 Wis. 2d 469, 600 N.W.2d 264 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0300.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Inherent in a defendant's choice to proceed pro se is the risk, which the defendant knowingly assumes, that a defense not known to him or her will not be presented during trial. State v. Clutter, 230 Wis. 2d 472, 602 N.W.2d 324 (Ct. App. 1999), 99-0705.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant has a substantive due process right to enforce a plea agreement after the plea has been entered. Defense counsel's failure to inform defendant of that right or to pursue enforcement of the agreement constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Scott, 230 Wis. 2d 643, 602 N.W.2d 926 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2109.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The lack of legal expertise is an impermissible basis on which to deny a request to represent oneself. State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis. 2d 103, 606 N.W.2d. 238, 97-1219.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. On administrative appeal a probationer may be assisted by counsel, but there is no right to appointed counsel or effective assistance of counsel. State ex rel. Mentek v. Schwarz, 2000 WI App 96, 235 Wis. 2d 143, 612 N.W.2d 746, 99-0182. See also Mentek v. Schwarz, 2001 WI 32, 242 Wis. 2d 94, 624 N.W.2d 150. 99-0182.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a person who has been formally charged with a crime has retained counsel to represent him or her on that charge and the attorney has informed police of the representation and that they are not to question the accused, the accused need not specifically "invoke" the right to counsel. In that case, police must assume that the accused does not intend to waive the right to counsel and may not question the accused in the absence of the attorney. State v. Dagnall, 2000 WI 82, 236 Wis. 2d 339, 612 N.W.2d 680, 98-2746.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant's unusual conduct or beliefs do not necessarily establish incompetence for purposes of self-representation. Although a defendant may exhibit beliefs that are out of the ordinary and make references that may antagonize jurors, that does not reflect a mental defect that prevents self-representation. State v. Ruszkiewicz, 2000 WI App 125, 237 Wis. 2d 441, 613 N.W.2d 893, 99-1198.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Except when charges have been filed in a closely-related case derived from the same factual predicate, the 6th amendment right to counsel is offense specific and attaches to a particular offense only after adversary proceedings are commenced. The 6th amendment does not not prohibit the interrogation of a defendant in regard to a murder in the absence of counsel retained in a bail jumping case. State v. Badker, 2001 WI App 27, 240 Wis. 2d 460, 623 N.W.2d 142, 99-2943.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. In making its separate determination of whether a defendant is indigent for purposes of court-appointed counsel, the trial court should consider federal poverty guidelines. If a defendant has no assets and an income well below the poverty level, the trial court should set forth why it determined that the defendant could afford counsel. State v. Nieves-Gonzales, 2001 WI App. 90, 242 Wis. 2d 782, 625 N.W.2d 913, 00-2138.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An indigent sexually violent person is constitutionally entitled to assistance of counsel in bringing a first appeal as of right from a denial of his or her petition for supervised release. State ex rel. Seibert v. Macht, 2001 WI 67, 244 Wis. 2d 378, 627 N.W.2d 881, 99-3354.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. There was ineffective assistance of counsel when the notice of appeal for the denial of a ch. 980 petition for supervised release was filed one day late in circuit court. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) the court of appeals could not conduct an independent review for error when the individual lacked requested representation. State ex rel. Seibert v. Macht, 2001 WI 67, 244 Wis. 2d 378, 627 N.W.2d 881, 99-3354.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Absent a showing of prejudice to their defense, misdemeanants were not denied effective counsel when their attorneys failed to object to the 6-person jury statute that was found unconstitutional in State v. Hansford, 219 Wis. 2d 226, 580 N.W.2d 171, (1998), 97-0885. State v. Franklin, 2001 WI 104, 245 Wis. 2d 582, 629 N.W.2d 289, 99-0743.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A reviewing court is not required to view defense counsel's subjective testimony as dispositive of an ineffective assistance claim. The testimony is simply evidence to be considered along with other evidence in the record that a court will examine in assessing counsel's overall performance. State v. Kimbrough, 2001 WI App 138, 246 Wis. 2d 648, 630 N.W.2d 752, 00-2133.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Absent waiver, a trial court's communication with a deliberating jury in the absence of the defendant and defense counsel violates the right to be present at trial and to have counsel at every stage that the defendant may need aid with legal problems. A violation is subject to harmless error analysis. State v. Koller, 2001 WI App 253, 248 Wis. 2d 259, 635 N.W.2d 838, 99-3084. See also State v. Anderson, 2006 WI 77, 291 Wis. 2d 673, 717 N.W.2d 74, 04-2010.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Forfeiture of the right to counsel cannot occur simply because the effect of the defendant's conduct is to frustrate the orderly and efficient progression of the case. The defendant must also have the purpose of causing that effect. Forfeiture, by action or conduct, is subject to the same rules as when a defendant informs the court that he or she wishes to proceed without counsel, and the court must determine whether the defendant is competent to proceed without an attorney. State v. Coleman, 2002 WI App 100, 253 Wis. 2d 693, 644 N.W.2d 283, 01-2201.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. For a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must be aware of: 1) the rights to an appeal, to the assistance of counsel for the appeal, and to opt for a no-merit report; 2) the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se; and 3) the possibility that if appointed counsel is permitted to withdraw, successor counsel may not be appointed. The necessary colloquy may be accomplished by written communications with the defendant, initiated either by the court or by counsel seeking to withdraw. State v. Thornton, 2002 WI App 294, 259 Wis. 2d 157, 656 N.W.2d 45, 01-0726.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Opening a letter marked "Legal Papers" outside of an inmate's presence may have violated an administrative rule, but it was not a violation of the 6th amendment right to counsel. For the right to counsel to have an arguable application, there must, as a threshold matter, be some evidence that the documents in the envelope were communications with an attorney. State v. Steffes, 2003 WI App 55, 260 Wis. 2d 841, 659 N.W.2d 445, 02-1300.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When in closing argument counsel concedes guilt on a lesser count in a multiple-count case, in light of overwhelming evidence on that count and in an effort to gain credibility and win acquittal on the other charges, the concession is a reasonable tactical decision and counsel is not deemed to have been constitutionally ineffective by admitting a client's guilt contrary to the client's plea of not guilty. State v. Gordon, 2003 WI 69, 262 Wis. 2d 380, 663 N.W.2d 765, 01-1679.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a court finds numerous deficiencies in a counsel's performance, it need not rely on the prejudicial effect of a single deficiency if, taken together, the deficiencies establish cumulative prejudice. Whether the aggregated errors by counsel will be enough to meet the Strickland prejudice requirement depends upon the totality of the circumstances at trial, not the totality of the representation provided to the defendant. State v. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, 264 Wis. 2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 305, 01-1589.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Under Dean a trial court is only obligated to advise a defendant of the right to counsel. The trial court is not required to conduct a colloquy that includes specific advice to a defendant that the right to appointed counsel is broader than the right to counsel provided by the state public defender and includes the right to counsel appointed by the court and paid for by the county. State v. Drexler, 2003 WI App 169, 266 Wis. 2d 438, 669 N.W.2d 182, 02-1313.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. No law requires that a motion to withdraw be filed any time an attorney appointed by the public defender terminates his or her postconviction/appellate representation of a defendant. Counsel for the defendant did not render ineffective assistance by closing his file without first obtaining court permission to withdraw or otherwise seeking a contemporaneous judicial determination that his client had knowingly waived either the right to appeal or the right to counsel. Ford v. Holm, 2004 WI App 22, 269 Wis. 2d 810, 676 N.W.2d 500, 02-1828.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An attorney may not substitute narrative questioning for the traditional question and answer format unless counsel knows that the client intends to testify falsely. Absent the most extraordinary circumstances, such knowledge must be based on the client's expressed admission of intent to testify untruthfully. While the defendant's admission need not be phrased in magic words, it must be unambiguous and directly made to the attorney. State v. McDowell, 2004 WI 70, 272 Wis. 2d 488, 681 N.W.2d 500, 02-1203.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a defendant informs counsel of the intention to testify falsely, the attorney's first duty shall be to attempt to dissuade the client from the unlawful course of conduct. The attorney should then consider moving to withdraw from the case. If the motion to withdraw is denied and the defendant insists on committing perjury, counsel should proceed with the narrative form of questioning, advising the defendant beforehand of what that entails and informing opposing counsel and the circuit court of the change of questioning style prior to use of the narrative. State v. McDowell, 2004 WI 70, 272 Wis. 2d 488, 681 N.W.2d 500, 02-1203.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An alleged violation of the requirements of Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, can form the basis of a collateral attack as long as the defendant makes a prima facie showing that he or she did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his or her constitutional right to counsel, which shifts the burden to prove that the defendant validly waived his or her right to counsel to the state. The state may elicit testimony from the defendant at an evidentiary hearing in an attempt to meet its burden and, in turn, the defendant may not raise the 5th amendment privilege against testifying. State v. Ernst, 2005 WI 107, 283 Wis. 2d 300, 699 N.W.2d 92, 03-1728.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a defendant seeks to proceed pro se, the circuit court undertakes a 2-part inquiry, ensuring that the defendant: 1) has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel; and 2) is competent to proceed pro se. The record must demonstrate an identifiable problem or disability that may prevent a defendant from making a meaningful defense. The circuit court need not always make an express finding as to which specific problem or disability prevented a defendant from being able to meaningfully represent himself or herself. State v. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, 286 Wis. 2d 204, 705 N.W.2d 878, 04-1609.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A deaf defendant who was shackled during trial and sentencing had the burden to show that he in fact was unable to communicate, not that he theoretically might have had such difficulty. State v. Russ, 2006 WI App 9, 289 Wis. 2d 65, 709 N.W.2d 483, 04-2869.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant's constitutional right to effective representation for the purpose of exercising the right to directly appeal a conviction did not require postconviction counsel to offer the defendant the option of a "partial no-merit" report on any potential issues remaining after the defendant declined for strategic reasons to pursue an issue having arguable merit. The U.S. Constitution requires only that "an indigent's appeal will be resolved in a way that is related to the merit of that appeal." Ford v. Holm, 2006 WI App 176, 296 Wis. 2d 119, 722 N.W. 2d 609, 02-1828.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. While courts sometimes can override a defendant's choice of counsel when deemed necessary, nothing requires them to do so. Requiring a court to disqualify an attorney because of a conflict of interest would infringe upon the defendant's right to retain counsel of his choice and could leave the accused with the impression that the legal system had conspired against him or her. State v. Demmerly, 2006 WI App 181, 296 Wis. 2d 153, 722 N.W. 2d 585, 05-0181.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Generally, a defendant who validly waives the right to conflict-free representation also waives the right to claim ineffective assistance of counsel based on the conflict, although there may be instances in which counsel's performance is deficient and unreasonably so even in light of the waived conflict of interest. State v. Demmerly, 2006 WI App 181, 296 Wis. 2d 153, 722 N.W. 2d 585, 05-0181.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. It is recommended, if not required, that circuit courts take certain steps to determine whether a defendant has forfeited the right to counsel: 1) provide explicit warnings that, if the defendant persists in specific conduct, the court will find that the right to counsel has been forfeited; 2) engage in a colloquy indicating that the defendant has been made aware of the difficulties and dangers inherent in self-representation; 3) make a clear ruling when the court deems the right to counsel to have been forfeited; and 4) make factual findings to support the court's ruling. State v. McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, 306 Wis. 2d 79, 742 N.W.2d 322, 06-0772.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. It would be unreasonable to require a circuit court to engage in a colloquy to ensure that the defendant deliberately relinquished the right to counsel in circumstances where the defendant will verbally insist he or she did not. In cases in which the defendant's words are inconsistent with the defendant's conduct, such a colloquy would be farcical. State v. McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, 306 Wis. 2d 79, 742 N.W.2d 322, 06-0772.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Although an indigent defendant does not have the right to pick his or her trial lawyer, the indigent defendant is entitled to a lawyer with whom he or she can communicate. The ability-to-communicate assessment is left to the reasoned discretion of the trial court. The court must make sufficient inquiry to ensure that a defendant is not cemented to a lawyer with whom full and fair communication is impossible; mere conclusions, unless adequately explained, will not fly. State v. Jones, 2007 WI App 248, 306 Wis. 2d 340, 742 N.W.2d 341, 07-0226.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. There is no 6th amendment effective assistance of counsel right to subpoena police reports and other non-privileged materials prior to a preliminary examination. State v. Schaefer, 2008 WI 25, 308 Wis. 2d 279, 746 N.W.2d 457, 06-1826.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A lawyer's failure to investigate is not deficient performance if he or she reasonably concludes, based on facts of record, that any investigation would be mere wheel-spinning and fruitless. When there is reason to believe that pursuing certain investigations would be fruitless or even harmful, counsel's failure to pursue those investigations may not later be challenged as unreasonable. State v. Walker, 2007 WI App 142, 302 Wis. 2d 735, 735 N.W.2d 582, 06-0562. Reversed on other grounds, State v. Walker, 2008 WI 34, 308 Wis. 2d 666, 747 N.W.2d 673, 06-0562.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Wisconsin affords a convicted person the right to postconviction counsel. It would be absurd to suggest that a person has a right to counsel at trial and a right to counsel on appeal, but no right to the assistance of counsel at a postconviction proceeding in the circuit court, which is often the precursor to and augments the record for an appeal. State v. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140, 314 Wis. 2d 192, 757 N.W.2d 834, 07-1867.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant does not have the right to be represented by: 1) an attorney he or she cannot afford; 2) an attorney who is not willing to represent the defendant; 3) an attorney with a conflict of interest; or 4) an advocate who is not a member of the bar. State v. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140, 314 Wis. 2d 192, 757 N.W.2d 834, 07-1867.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The circuit court's decision to remove counsel of choice is discretionary. The court does not have unfettered freedom to deprive a defendant of retained counsel. Whether removal for conflict was proper rests on whether the court balanced the defendant's right to be represented by retained counsel against the court's interest in the appearance of fairness and diffusing what it characterized as a potential conflict. State v. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140, 314 Wis. 2d 192, 757 N.W.2d 834, 07-1867.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When making a determination whether to allow the defendant's counsel of choice to participate, the circuit court must balance the defendant's right to select counsel against the public's interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice. Several factors assist the court in balancing the relevant interests, for example: the length of delay requested; whether competent counsel is presently available and prepared to try the case; whether prior continuances have been requested and received by the defendant; the inconvenience to the parties, witnesses and the court; and whether the delay seems to be for legitimate reasons or whether its purpose is dilatory. State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 07-1982.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant must clearly and unequivocally make a declaration in order to invoke the right to self-representation. A trial court has no duty to advise a defendant of the right to self-representation prior to an invocation. State v. Darby, 2009 WI App 50, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 08-0935.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A preliminary hearing to determine probable cause for detention pending further proceedings is not a "critical stage" in a prosecution requiring appointed counsel. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The state may not force a lawyer upon a defendant who intelligently insists upon conducting his or her own defense. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel includes the right to make a closing summary of evidence to the trier of fact. Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel includes the right to consult with an attorney during a trial recess. Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Prisoners facing disciplinary charges that also constitute crimes have no right to counsel at the disciplinary hearing. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When the defendant's right to counsel was violated by a corporeal identification conducted in court without counsel, the prosecution could not introduce identification evidence even though the identification had an independent source. Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 (1977).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel was not violated when a permissible jury instruction, intended for the defendant's benefit, was given over defense counsel's objections. Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333 (1978).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whenever the trial court improperly requires joint representation over a timely objection, reversal is automatic. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An indigent defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel when charged with an offense for which imprisonment is authorized but not imposed. Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. In order to demonstrate a violation of the right to counsel, the defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected the counsel's performance. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The government violated the defendant's right to counsel by placing a paid informant in the same cell who deliberately elicited incriminating statements. United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When the right to counsel was infringed but no prejudice to the defendant was shown, the court erred in dismissing indictment. United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (1981).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Since a criminal defendant has no constitutional right to counsel to pursue a discretionary state appeal, the defendant could not be deprived of effective counsel by counsel's failure to timely file an application for certiorari. Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586 (1982).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel does not guarantee a "meaningful attorney-client relationship." Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Counsel appealing a conviction need not present every nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Without surrounding circumstances making it unlikely that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel, a claim of ineffective assistance must be supported by demonstrating specific errors made by trial counsel. U.S. v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. To support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show a probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Indigent inmates held in administrative segregation during the investigation of a prison murder were not entitled to counsel prior to the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings against them. U.S. v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An accused's postrequest responses to further interrogation may not be used to cast retrospective doubt on the clarity of an initial request for counsel. Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Due process guarantees a criminal defendant the effective assistance of counsel on a first appeal as of right. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to assistance of counsel wasn't violated when an attorney refused to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at trial. Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Because an individual has no underlying constitutional right to appointed counsel in state collateral postconviction proceedings, the individual may not insist upon implementation of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), procedures. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Though the trial court must recognize the presumption that a defendant is entitled to his or her counsel of choice, the presumption is overcome by actual conflict and a serious potential for actual conflict. Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel was not violated by the court's instruction to the defendant that he not confer with his attorney during a 15 minute recess between the defendant's direct and cross-examination. Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 102 L. Ed. 2d 624 (1989).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The sixth amendment right to counsel is offense specific. An accused's invocation of this right during a judicial proceeding did not constitute an invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda arising from the 5th amendment guarantees against self incrimination in regard to police questioning concerning a separate offense. McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 115 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An uncounseled misdemeanor conviction, valid because no prison term was imposed, is also valid when used to enhance punishment upon a subsequent conviction. Nichols v. U.S., 511 U.S. 738, 128 L. Ed. 2d 745 (1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. To void a conviction due to a 6th amendment violation when a trial court has failed to inquire into a potential conflict of interest that the court knew or should have known of, the defendant must establish that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance. Failure of the trial court to inquire into the conflict did not reduce the defendant's burden of proof. Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 152 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2002).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The 6th amendment right to counsel of choice commands, not that a trial be fair, but that a particular guarantee of fairness be provided, to wit, that the accused be defended by the counsel he or she believes to be best. When that right is violated because the deprivation of counsel is erroneous, no additional showing of prejudice is required to make the violation complete, and the violation is not subject to harmless-error analysis. United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. ___, 165 L. Ed. 2d 409, 126 S. Ct. 2557 (2006).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The Constitution does not forbid a state to insist that the defendant proceed to trial with counsel when the state court found the defendant mentally competent to stand trial if represented by counsel but not mentally competent to conduct that trial himself. Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. ___, 171 L. Ed. 2d 345, 128 S. Ct. 2379 (2008).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to counsel applies at the first appearance before a judicial officer at which a defendant is told of the formal accusation against him or her and restrictions are imposed on his or her liberty. Attachment of the right does not require that a public prosecutor as distinct from a police officer be aware of that initial proceeding or involved in its conduct. Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. ___, 171 L. Ed. 2d 366, 128 S. Ct. 2578 (2008).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, which provided that if police initiate interrogation after the defendant's assertion of the right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant's right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid, is overruled. Courts are not required to presume that such a waiver is invalid under those circumstances. Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. ___, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2009).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant's incriminating statement to a jailhouse informant, concededly elicited in violation of the 6th amendment right to counsel, was admissible at trial to impeach the defendant's conflicting statement. Kansas v. Ventris 556 U.S. ___, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2009).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When postconviction counsel failed to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a postconviction motion under s. 974.02, the defendant's opportunity to argue that claim on direct appeal was foreclosed. The appropriate forum for asserting ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failure to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel was in a collateral motion under s. 974.06. Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901 (2003).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Right to counsel; repayment of cost of court-appointed counsel as a condition of probation. 56 MLR 551.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. McNeil v. Wisconsin: Blurring a Bright Line on Custodial Interrogation. 1992 WLR 1643.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT.
How do You Get a Lawyer Around Here? The Ambiguous Invocation of a Defendant's Right to Counsel under Miranda v. Arizona? 79 MLR 1041 (1997).
JURY TRIAL AND JUROR QUALIFICATIONS
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. NOTE: See also the notes to s. 906.06 for decisions relating to overturning verdicts due to juror misconduct.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Contradictory testimony of different state witnesses does not necessarily cancel the testimony and render it unfit as a basis for a conviction. The determination of credibility and the weight to be accorded the testimony is a jury function, and the jury may accept or reject the inconsistent testimony, even under the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof. Embry v. State, 46 Wis. 2d 151, 174 N.W.2d 521.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A resident of Menominee county may properly be tried by a jury drawn from the Shawano-Menominee district. Article IV, sec. 23, is not violated by using district-based jury lists. Pamanet v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 501, 182 N.W.2d 459.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When 2 alternate jurors in a murder trial made remarks critical of court procedures and the defense attorney, but were removed prior to the time the case was submitted to the jury, a showing of probable prejudice was required for a mistrial to be ordered. Shelton v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 43, 183 N.W.2d 87.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Asking an improper question that is not answered is not grounds for reversal, especially when the trial court instructs the jury to disregard the question and to draw no inferences therefrom. The instruction is presumed to efface any possible prejudice resulting from asking the question. Taylor v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 453, 190 N.W.2d 208.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial because of a statement made by the prosecutor in closing argument, challenged as improper because the prosecutor expressed his opinion as to defendant's guilt, where it neither could be said that the statement was based on sources of information outside the record, nor expressed the prosecutor's conviction as to what the evidence established. State v. McGee, 52 Wis. 2d 736, 190 N.W.2d 893.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When the prosecutor stated in opening remarks that the defendant refused to be fingerprinted but failed to introduce testimony to this effect, the error was cured by proper instructions. State v. Tew, 54 Wis. 2d 361, 195 N.W.2d 615.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The exclusion of young persons, students, and teachers from a jury list is discussed. If a challenge establishes discrimination, the jury list is invalid and the defendant need not show prejudice. Brown v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 158, 205 N.W.2d 566.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Rules for proving discrimination in compiling a jury list and the burden of proof are discussed. Wilson v. State, 59 Wis. 2d 269, 208 N.W.2d 134.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Jurors are not necessarily prejudiced by reason of having sat as jurors at the same term on similar cases when the state's witnesses were the same, but it is better not to use the same jurors. State v. Boutch, 60 Wis. 2d 397, 210 N.W.2d 751.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The absence of persons of the defendant's race on the jury panel is not ipso facto evidence of prejudice. Jones v. State, 66 Wis. 2d 105, 223 N.W.2d 889.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant, having been found competent to stand trial, must necessarily have possessed the intellectual capacity to waive the right to a jury trial. Norwood v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 343, 246 N.W.2d 801.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A jury must unanimously find participation in a crime, but the jury need not unanimously agree whether defendant: 1) directly committed crime; 2) aided and abetted its commission; or 3) conspired with another to commit it. Holland v. State, 91 Wis. 2d 134, 280 N.W.2d 288 (1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Unanimity of criminal verdicts is discussed. Jackson v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 1, 284 N.W.2d 685 (Ct. App. 1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Excusing Native Americans from a jury without individual examination denied the Native American defendant a trial by an impartial jury. State v. Chosa, 108 Wis. 2d 392, 321 N.W.2d 280 (1982).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The verdict was unanimous in a battery case even though the jury was not required to specify whether the battery occurred when the defendant threw an object at the victim or during an ensuing fistfight. State v. Giwosky, 109 Wis. 2d 446, 326 N.W.2d 232 (1982).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The verdict was unanimous in a rape case even though the jury was not required to specify whether the sexual assault was vaginal or oral. State v. Lomagro, 113 Wis. 2d 582, 335 N.W.2d 583 (1983).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When the accused refused to participate in the trial, the court erred by failing to inform the accused of the right to be present at trial, to waive that right, and to reclaim it at any time. State v. Haynes, 118 Wis. 2d 21, 345 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A waiver of the right to a jury trial is effective if the defendant understands the basic purpose and function of a jury trial. Trial courts are prospectively ordered to advise defendants of the unanimity requirement before accepting a waiver. State v. Resio, 148 Wis. 2d 687, 436 N.W.2d 603 (1989).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant has the right to a jury determination on each element of a charged offense. The right can be waived only by the defendant personally on the record. State v. Villarreal, 153 Wis. 2d 323, 450 N.W.2d 519 (Ct. App. 1989).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges in a purposefully discriminatory manner, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a neutral explanation for challenging the jurors. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) is discussed. State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 453 N.W.2d 127 (1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Law enforcement officers should not be automatically excused for cause from a jury pool on the grounds of implied bias. State v. Louis, 156 Wis. 2d 470, 457 N.W.2d 484 (1990). But for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias, see State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Waiver of a jury trial must be made by affirmative action of the defendant. Neither counsel nor the court may waive it on the defendant's behalf. If the defendant has not personally waived the right, the proper remedy is a new trial, not a postconviction hearing. State v. Livingston, 159 Wis. 2d 561, 464 N.W.2d 839 (1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A juvenile's right to a jury trial is purely statutory. In Interest of R.H.L. 159 Wis. 2d 653, 464 N.W.2d 848 (Ct. App. 1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Under rare circumstances, a jury instruction creating a conclusive presumption regarding an element of a crime may be harmless error. State v. Kuntz, 160 Wis. 2d 722, 467 N.W.2d 531 (1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Kinship to a person who has been criminally charged or convicted may constitute a legitimate racially-neutral reason for striking a member of the jury panel. State v. Davidson, 166 Wis. 2d 35, 479 N.W.2d 181 (Ct. App. 1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Unanimity requirements where multiple occurrences of multiple acts are charged are discussed. State v. Marcum, 166 Wis. 2d 908, 480 N.W.2d 545 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Prospective jurors related to a state witness by blood or marriage to the third degree must be struck from the jury panel. State v. Gesch, 167 Wis. 2d 660, 482 N.W.2d 99 (1992). But for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias see State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant cannot show jury prejudice unless the exhaustion of peremptory challenges left a jury that included an objectionable or incompetent member. State v. Traylor, 170 Wis. 2d 393, 489 N.W.2d 626 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When the jury is sworn during the trial but prior to deliberations, a mistrial is not warranted in the absence of prejudice. State v. Block, 170 Wis. 2d 676, 489 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant has the right to have jurors individually polled on their verdict. Reassembling and polling the jury 51 days after the verdict was rendered was harmless error. State v. Coulthard, 171 Wis. 2d 573, 492 N.W.2d 329 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When the jury is presented with evidence of more than one crime, the verdict must be unanimous as to each crime. To sustain a conviction when alternative methods of proof resting upon different evidentiary facts are presented to the jury, the evidence must be sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt upon both of the alternative modes of proof. State v. Chambers, 173 Wis. 2d 237, 496 N.W.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The "clearly erroneous" standard applies to all steps under the Batson, 476 U.S. 79, analysis made by a trial court in determining whether a peremptory challenge was discriminatory. State v. Lopez, 173 Wis. 2d 724, 496 N.W.2d 617 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The verdict of a 13 member jury panel agreed to by the defense and prosecution was not invalid. State v. Ledger, 175 Wis. 2d 116, 499 N.W.2d 199 (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A trial court's comments to a deliberating jury without the presence of the defendant and his or her counsel violated the constitutional right to be present at trial. The trial court should not inquire of a deliberating jury the numerical division of the jury. State v. McMahon, 186 Wis. 2d 68, 519 N.W.2d 621 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A criminal defendant may not be tried by a juror who cannot comprehend testimony. Once it is determined that a juror has missed testimony that bears on guilt or innocence prejudice must be assumed. State v. Turner, 186 Wis. 2d 277, 521 N.W.2d 148 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When polling the jury showed a unanimous verdict, no constitutional error occurred due to a failure to instruct the jury that a unanimous verdict was required. State v. Kircherz, 189 Wis. 2d 392, 525 N.W.2d 788 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whether a defendant is required to be shackled at trial should be determined based on the particular risk of violence or escape. Where the shackles cannot be viewed by the jury no prejudicial harm may occur. State v. Grinder, 190 Wis. 2d 541, 527 N.W.2d 326 (1995).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant's presence is required during all proceedings when the jury is being selected, including in camera voir dire. However, failure to allow the defendant's presence may be harmless error. State v. David J.K. 190 Wis. 2d 726, 528 N.W.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When it was conceded that a juror was sleeping, summarily foreclosing inquiry into the juror's inattentiveness was an erroneous exercise of discretion. The court must examine the length of the inattentiveness, the importance of the testimony missed and whether the inattention prejudiced the defendant to the point that there was not a fair trial. State v. Hampton, 201 Wis. 2d 662, 549 N.W.2d 756 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-0152.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The prosecutor's motive of protecting the defendant cannot justify a peremptory challenge based solely on a juror's race. Excluding a prospective juror because of race can never be "neutral" regardless of the prosecutor's good faith. State v. Guerra-Reyna, 201 Wis. 2d 751, 549 N.W.2d 779 (Ct. App. 1996), 93-3464.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When there are grounds to believe the jury in a criminal case needs protection, a trial court may take reasonable steps to protect the identity of potential jurors. Preventing references on the record to juror's names, employment, and addresses while providing the defense with copies of the juror questionnaires during voir dire was within the court's discretion. State v. Britt, 203 Wis. 2d 25, 553 N.W.2d 528 (Ct. App. 1995), 95-0891.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whether the interplay of legally correct instructions impermissibly misled a jury is to be determined based on whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a juror was misled. State v. Lohmeier, 205 Wis. 2d 183, 556 N.W.2d 90 (1996), 94-2187.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A party defending against an allegation that peremptory strikes were used for discriminatory reasons must offer something more than a statement that nonprohibited factors were considered. There must be a showing of a nexus between legitimate factors and the juror who was struck. State v. Jagodinsky, 209 Wis. 2d 577, 563 N.W.2d 188 (Ct. App. 1997), 95-1946.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A potential juror who stated he doubted the innocence of someone who would not testify and then said he could probably set that feeling aside should have been removed for cause under s. 805.08 (1). Failure to remove the juror forced the defendant to strike the potential juror, which violated the defendant's right to due process. State v. Ferron, 214 Wis. 2d 268, 570 N.W.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3425. But for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias see State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A party is prohibited from striking a potential juror based on a prohibited characteristic, even if other non-prohibited characteristics were also considered. State v. King, 215 Wis. 2d 295, 572 N.W.2d 530 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-1509.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An objection that peremptory challenges were racially motivated in violation of Basten must be made prior to the time the jury is sworn. State v. Jones, 218 Wis. 2d 599, 581 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1002.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The use of and procedure for juror questioning of witnesses is discussed. State v. Darcy N.K. 218 Wis. 2d 640, 581 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-0458.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Art. I, s. 7 guarantees the right to a jury of 12 in all criminal cases whether felony or misdemeanor. State v. Hansford, 219 Wis. 2d 226, 580 N.W.2d 171 (1998), 97-0885.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant waives an objection to juror bias if no motion is made to the trial court for removal for cause. The ultimate decision whether to make the motion is for counsel and not the defendant to make. State v. Brunette, 220 Wis. 2d 431, 583 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2111.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Failure to bring the incompleteness of an individual polling of the jury to the attention of the trial court constitutes waiver of any claim based on the deficiency. State v. Brunette, 220 Wis. 2d 431, 583 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2111.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Failure to respond truthfully to voir dire questions is sufficient grounds to discharge a juror during trial. Specific proof of bias is not required. State v. Williams, 220 Wis. 2d 458, 583 N.W.2d 845 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-1276.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A juror who unequivocally announced his belief that a witness would not lie, but also said he could remain impartial showed manifest bias that could not be obviated. Following denial of a motion for mistrial, the defendant's agreement to proceed with 11 jurors did not waive the right to further address the mistrial issue. State v. Faucher, 220 Wis. 2d 689, 584 N.W.2d 157 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2702. Affirmed, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Juror bias may be actual, implied, or inferred. Inferred bias is a factual finding requiring evaluation of the facts and circumstances including those surrounding the juror's incomplete or incorrect responses to questions during voir dire. Truthful responses do not prevent finding inferred bias. State v. Delgado, 223 Wis. 2d 270, 588 N.W.2d 1 (1999), 96-2194. But for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias see State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The terms "statutory bias," subjective bias," and "objective bias" are adopted as the proper terms for referring to types of jury bias, replacing the terms "implied bias," "subjective bias," and "objective bias." State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Statutory bias refers to those situations described in s. 805.08 (1); a person falling within one of the descriptions there may not serve regardless of the ability to be impartial. Although s. 805.08 (1) refers to jurors who have expressed or formed an opinion, that situation more properly qualifies as subjective bias. State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Subjective bias is revealed through the words and demeanor of the prospective juror as revealed on voir dire; it refers to the juror's state of mind. State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Objective bias focuses on whether a reasonable person in the individual prospective juror's position could be impartial; the circuit court is particularly well positioned to determine objective bias. State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. State v. Wyss, 124 Wis. 2d 470, Louis, Gescch, State v. Messelt, 185 Wis. 2d 254, Ferron, Delgado, and State v. Broomfield, 223 Wis. 2d 465, are cases through which jury bias jurisprudence has evolved; where each would fall given the new bias terminology adopted in this case is considered. State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), 97-2702.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Veteran jurors cannot be removed solely on the basis of having served as jurors in a similar case, but must be shown to have exhibited bias in the case they are called to hear. It was error for the trial court not to strike 5 potential jurors who had served on a prior case in which the same defense was used when the jurors expressed that they would not give serious consideration to the defense. State v. Kiernan, 227 Wis. 2d 736, 596 N.W.2d 760 (1999), 97-2449.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant is not entitled to a new trial when both the prosecution and defense are given an equal number of peremptory strikes, even if the number is less than provided for by statute. State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999), 98-0273.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. There is no automatic disqualification of potential jurors who have been convicted of crimes. The erroneous dismissal of a prospective juror for cause does not constitute an additional peremptory challenge for the moving party; it is an error subject to harmless error analysis. State v. Mendoza, 227 Wis. 2d 838, 596 N.W.2d 736 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-0952.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Hansford applies retroactively only to those cases in which the issue of a six-person jury was raised before trial. State v. Zivcic, 229 Wis. 2d 119, 598 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0909.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Stipulating to an element of a crime did not deny the constitutional right to a jury trial when the jury was instructed on the element and the court did not resolve the issue on its own. State v. Benoit, 229 Wis. 2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1531. See also Walworth County DH&HS v. Andrea L.O. 2008 WI 46, 309 Wis. 2d 161, 749 N.W.2d 168, 07-0008.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Deprivation of the right to be present and to have counsel present at jury selection is subject to a harmless error analysis; there is a thin line between when reversal is warranted and when it is not. That a juror's subjective bias is generally ascertained by that person's responses at voir dire and that the interplay between potential jurors and a defendant is both immediate and continuous are factors that weigh against finding harmless error. State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1091.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The defendant was not automatically entitled to a new trial when, in waiving the right to a jury trial, the trial court did not advise that a jury verdict must be unanimous. The appropriate remedy is through a postconviction motion that, as a threshold requirement, must contain an allegation that the defendant did not know or understand the rights at issue. State v. Grant, 230 Wis. 2d 90, 601 N.W.2d 8 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2206.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A prospective juror who is the brother-in-law of a state witness is a relative by marriage to the 3rd degree under Gesch who be struck for cause as the relationship constitutes statutory bias. Failure to do so is grounds for reversal and a new trial. State v. Czarnecki, 231 Wis. 2d 1, 604 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2406.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to a jury trial guaranteed by art. I, ss. 5 and 7, includes the right to a unanimous verdict with respect to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, 98-0642.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Peremptory challenges may not be exercised, and therefore not changed, after the parties have accepted the jury, even if the jury has not yet been sworn. State v. Nantelle, 2000 WI App 110, 235 Wis. 2d 91, 612 N.W.2d 356, 99-2159.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A party who during voir dire neither requests further questioning nor objects to the seating of a juror may not later allege error in the trial court's failure to act sua sponte in regard to a juror who may not be impartial. State v. Williams, 2000 WI App. 123, 237 Wis. 2d 591, 614 N.W.2d 11, 99-0812.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to a jury trial guaranteed by art. I, ss. 5 and 7 includes the right to a unanimous verdict with respect to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, 98-0642.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Inconvenience and inability to work during regular working hours cannot result in bias sufficient to strike a juror for cause. State v. Guzman, 2001 WI App 54, 241 Wis. 2d 310, 624 N.W.2d 717, 99-2249.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A challenge under Batson that a peremptory strike was solely because of race does not require a post-verdict evidentiary hearing and must be decided based on what the prosecutor believed at the time the strike was made. A defendant must show that the prosecutor intentionally misrepresented the facts that were relied on or that the prosecutor had been told those facts but knew they were erroneous. State v. Gregory, 2001 WI App 107, 244 Wis. 2d 65, 630 N.W.2d 711, 00-0961.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial court's failure to remove a potential juror who was objectively biased, forcing the defendant to strike the potential juror with one of the peremptory strikes guaranteed under s. 972.03, did not require a new trial when the defendant received a fair trial. The harmless error test is applicable. Overturns State v. Ramos, 211 Wis. 2d 12, 564 N.W.2d 328 (1997), 94-3036. State v. Lindell, 2001 WI 108, 245 Wis. 2d 689, 629 N.W.2d 223, 99-2704.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When a jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of both a greater and a lesser included offense, although the jury had been instructed that it could only find one or the other, it was not error for the court to enter judgment on the greater offense after polling the jury to confirm the result. State v. Hughes, 2001 WI App 239, 248 Wis. 2d 133, 635 N.W.2d 661, 00-3176.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Excusing and deferring prospective jurors under s. 756.03 is one component of a circuit judge's obligation to administer the jury system. The judge may delegate the authority to the clerk of circuit court under s. 756.03 (3). The task need not be performed by a judge in court or with the prospective juror present in person, and may take place in advance of a particular trial. A defendant's presence cannot be required when the judge or clerk is acting in an administrative capacity under s. 756.03. State v. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, 248 Wis. 2d 409, 636 N.W.2d 488, 00-1821.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Although it was error for the court to interview potential jurors outside of the presence of the prosecution, defendant, and defense counsel, the error was harmless when there was no showing that it contributed to the defendant's conviction. State v. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236, 248 Wis. 2d 505, 635 N.W.2d 807, 00-3084.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Absent waiver, a trial court's communication with a deliberating jury in the absence of the defendant and defense counsel violates the right to be present at trial and to have counsel at every stage that the defendant may need aid with legal problems. A violation is subject to harmless error analysis. State v. Koller, 2001 WI App 253, 248 Wis. 2d 259, 635 N.W.2d 838, 99-3084.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. To prove a valid jury trial waiver, the circuit court must conduct a colloquy designed to ensure that the defendant: 1) made a deliberate choice, absent threats or promises, to proceed without a jury trial; 2) was aware of the nature of a jury trial, such that it consists of a panel of 12 people who must agree on all elements of the crime charged; 3) was aware of the nature of a court trial, such that the judge will decide his or her guilt; and 4) had enough time to discuss the decision with counsel. State v. Anderson, 2002 WI 7, 249 Wis. 2d 586, 638 N.W.2d 301, 00-1563.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. If the trial court fails to conduct a colloquy with the defendant regarding the waiver of the right to a jury trial, a reviewing court may not find, based on the record, that there was a valid waiver. As a remedy, the circuit court must hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. If the state is unable to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. State v. Anderson, 2002 WI 7, 249 Wis. 2d 586, 638 N.W.2d 301, 00-1563.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A prospective juror who openly admits bias and is never questioned about his or her partiality is subjectively biased as a matter of law. State v. Carter, 2002 WI App 55, 250 Wis. 2d 851, 641 N.W.2d 517, 01-2303.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A jury instruction directing the jury to accept a judicially-noticed fact as true when applied to an element of a criminal offense eliminates the jury's opportunity to reach an independent, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt decision on that element and is constitutional error, although it is subject to harmless error analysis. State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, 254 Wis. 2d 442, 647 N.W.2d 189, 00-0541.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whether a defendant waived the right to have the jury determine all the elements of the crime or only some of them and whether the defendant gave up a jury trial in lieu of a determination by the circuit court or stipulated to the elements, the waiver analysis is the same. Any waiver must be made personally on the record by the defendant. State v. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226, 257 Wis. 2d 579, 652 N.W.2d 393, 01-1668.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. If a court withholds any juror information in open court, it must both: 1) find that the jury needs protection; and 2) take reasonable precautions to avoid prejudicing the defendant. When jurors' names are withheld, the court, at a minimum, must make a precautionary statement to the jury that the use of numbers instead of names should in no way be interpreted as a reflection of the defendant's guilt or innocence. State v. Tucker, 2003 WI 12, 259 Wis. 2d 484, 657 N.W.2d 374, 00-3354.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An ability to understand the English language is necessary in order to satisfy the statutory requirements of ss. 756.02 and 756.04. If a juror cannot meet the statutory requirements the entire trial process may be nothing more than an "exercise in futility." A defendant was prejudiced when a juror was was allowed to serve as a juror who was not qualified under the statutes and did not have a sufficient understanding of English so that he could meaningfully participate in the trial process. State v. Carlson, 2003 WI 40, 261 Wis. 2d 97, 661 N.W.2d 51, 01-1136.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. While a limited class of errors is deemed structural, requiring automatic reversal regardless of any effect on the outcome, most errors, including constitutional ones, are reviewed for harmlessness. Harmless error analysis applies to an erroneous jury instruction that operated as a mandatory conclusive presumption on an element of a penalty enhancer. State v. Gordon, 2003 WI 69, 262 Wis. 2d 380, 663 N.W.2d 765, 01-1679.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An accused's right to a unanimous verdict is not violated every time a judge instructs a jury on a statute that presents multiple modes of commission and does not select one among the many modes of commission. An argument that an instruction leads to a constitutionally infirm verdict must address the legislature's intent in enacting the statute and, if multiple modes of commission are found, whether the choice provided is constitutionally unacceptable. State v. Norman, 2003 WI 72, 262 Wis. 2d 506, 664 N.W.2d 97, 01-3303.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A prosecutor's knowledge that a challenged juror possessed the same name as known criminals in the area, the location of a venire person's residence when a residential location has some relationship to the facts of the case, failure to disclose during voir dire any police contacts at his or her residence when research revealed such contacts, and employment, or unemployment status, all may be race-neutral explanations for a peremptory strike. Individual follow-up questions on voir dire are not required in order to strike a potential juror. State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, 262 Wis. 2d 747, 664 N.W.2d 607, 00-3403.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whether a prosecutor's conduct during closing argument affects the fairness of a trial is determined by viewing the statements in the context of the total trial. A line of demarcation is drawn where the prosecutor goes beyond reasoning from the evidence to a conclusion of guilt and suggests the jury arrive at a verdict by considering factors other than the evidence. Argument on matters not in evidence is improper. State v. Smith, 2003 WI App 234, 268 Wis. 2d 138, 671 N.W.2d 854, 02-3404.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. There is no constitutional right to waive a jury and be tried by a judge. A prosecutor's decision to withhold consent to a defendant's requested waiver of his or her right to a jury trial, as required by statute, is not reviewable. A trial court need not justify its refusal to approve the waiver. State v. Burks, 2004 WI App 14, 268 Wis. 2d 747, 674 N.W.2d 640, 03-0472.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Reinstruction that presents for the first time choices for lesser included offenses not presented in the initial instructions, if proper at all, would be a rare event, only done in exceptional circumstances. State v. Thurmond, 2004 WI App 49, 270 Wis. 2d 477, 677 N.W.2d 655, 03-0191.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When counsel fails to object under Batson to peremptory strikes on the grounds they were improperly based on race or gender, the defendant claiming harm must establish that had trial counsel made the Batson objection there is a reasonable probability that it would have been sustained and the trial court would have taken the appropriate curative action. Discriminatory intent is a question of historical fact. The essential inquiry is whether the prosecutor had viable neutral explanations for the peremptory challenges. State v. Taylor, 2004 WI App 81, 272 Wis. 2d 642, 679 N.W.2d 893, 03-1509.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The verdict of a jury must be arrived at freely and fairly. The validity of a unanimous verdict is not dependent on what the jurors agree to in the jury room, but rather upon what is unanimously reported in open court. The right to poll the jury is an absolute right, if not waived, and its denial requires reversal. Defendants may waive the right by failing to ask for a poll in the first instance, or by failing to ask for additional polling when given the opportunity to request it. State v. Raye, 2005 WI 68, 281 Wis. 2d 339, 697 N.W.2d 407, 04-0770.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A court has two options if a juror dissents during jury polling or assents merely an accommodation against the juror's conscience: return the jury for continued deliberations or determine that further deliberations would be fruitless and grant a mistrial. If a juror gives an ambiguous or ambivalent assent the court may question the juror further. When initially asked by the court, "Is this your verdict?" and the juror first replied, "Can I ask a question?" and then with an unambiguous "no," the court could only have granted a mistrial or returned the jury for further deliberations. State v. Raye, 2005 WI 68, 281 Wis. 2d 339, 697 N.W.2d 407, 04-0770.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. An administrative assistant employed by a county district attorney's office was not objectively biased because she worked for the same entity as the prosecuting attorney. The court declines to create a per se rule that excludes potential jurors for the sole reason that they are employed by a district attorney's Office. State v. Smith, 2006 WI 74, 291 Wis. 2d 569, 716 N.W.2d 482, 04-2035.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A judge's interruptions of a juror's answers to questions regarding her agreement with the verdict and the judge's insistence that the form showed a unanimous verdict strongly suggested that the juror may have felt pressure and intimidation, and that she may have misunderstood the verdict reached in the jury room. Although the juror expressed agreement with subsequent statements, because the juror was cut off when attempting to answer whether she found the defendant guilty or not guilty, and never actually gave an answer, the juror could not be said to have found the defendant guilty on count one. Consequently, the verdict was not unanimous. State v. Dukes, 2007 WI App 175, 303 Wis. 2d 208, 736 N.W.2d 215, 06-2127.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The trial court has an affirmative, sua sponte duty to inquire into the necessity for a defendant to wear a visible electronic security device during trial once the court becomes aware of the situation. A trial court maintains the discretion to decide whether a defendant should be restrained during a trial as long as the reasons justifying the restraints have been set forth in the record. It is an erroneous exercise of discretion to rely primarily upon law enforcement department procedures instead of considering the risk a particular defendant poses for violence or escape. State v. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, 307 Wis. 2d 232, 744 N.W.2d 889, 06-2435.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whenever a defendant wears a restraint in the presence of jurors trying the case, the court should instruct that the restraint is not to be considered in assessing the proof and determining guilt. Counsel's failure to object to the device constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, 307 Wis. 2d 232, 744 N.W.2d 889, 06-2435.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. While the prosecutor may strike hard blows during closing argument, the prosecutor's duty is to refrain from using improper methods. Prosecutors may not ask jurors to draw inferences that they know or should know are not true. State v. Weiss, 2008 WI App 72, 312 Wis. 2d 382, 752 N.W.2d 372, 07-0778.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A demonstration of the specific bias of a juror is not needed to remove a juror from deliberations when there are 12 other jurors whose impartiality the trial court does not have a concern about. The trial court properly exercised its discretion when it designated a juror as an alternate based on its concern regarding potential impartiality. The trial court has a duty to ensure that the impaneled jury is an impartial one; one that is free of bias or prejudice. State v. Gonzalez, 2008 WI App 142, 314 Wis. 2d 129, 758 N.W.2d 153, 07-2160.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. As a matter of law, a reasonable presiding judge could not reach any other conclusion than to excuse his mother from sitting on the jury. State v. Tody, 2009 WI 31, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 07-0400.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. In nonsummary criminal contempt proceedings, the alleged contemnor has a right to a jury trial if the sentences imposed aggregate more than 6 months. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The court erred by communicating with the jury and agreeing to accept a guilty verdict "with extreme mercy" without notifying defense counsel. Rogers v. United States, 422 U.S. 35.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A Missouri law that granted women an exemption from jury duty on request, resulting in low representation of women on panels, violated the "fair cross section" requirement of the 6th amendment. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When community sentiment against the accused had softened by the time of trial 4 years after a heinous crime, the trial court did not commit "manifest error" in finding the jury as a whole was impartial. Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A black defendant was denied equal protection through the state's use of peremptory challenges to exclude all blacks from the jury. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). See also Purkett v. Elem, 515 U.S. 1170, 132 Ed 2d 874 (1995).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The "fair cross section" element to the right to trial by jury does not provide a constitutional basis for a challenge to the prosecution's peremptory striking of jurors on the basis of race. Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474, 107 L. Ed. 2d 905 (1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Equal protection precludes prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge to exclude potential jurors solely by reason of race. A criminal defendant may raise the equal protection claim that jurors were excluded because of their race whether or not there is racial identity between the defendant and the excluded jurors. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When potential jurors had seen news reports about the defendant's alleged crime, the judge's refusal to question those prospective jurors about the specific content of those reports did not violate right to an impartial jury. Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 114 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A criminal defendant is prohibited from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the basis of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges of potential jurors. Georgia V. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 120 L. Ed. 33 (1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A constitutionally deficient instruction regarding proof beyond a reasonable doubt can never be harmless error. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Gender-based peremptory strikes are barred by the equal protection clause. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. 511 U.S. 127, 128 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1994).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Batson established a 3-step process for the constitutional review of allegedly race-based peremptory strikes: 1) the defendant must make out a prima facie case by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose: 2) once the defendant has made out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the state to explain adequately the racial exclusion by offering permissible race-neutral justifications for the strikes; and 3) if a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination. Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 L. Ed. 2d 129, 125 S. Ct. 2410 (2005). See also Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196, 125 S. Ct. 2317 (2005).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. It was not intended that the first Batson step be so onerous that a defendant would have to persuade the judge on the basis of all the facts, some of which are impossible for the defendant to know with certainty, that the challenge was more likely than not the product of purposeful discrimination. Instead, a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson's first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred. Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 162 L. Ed. 2d 129, 125 S. Ct. 2410 (2005).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to exercise peremptory challenges in state court is determined by state law. The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that peremptory challenges are not of federal constitutional dimension. States may withhold peremptory challenges altogether without impairing the constitutional guarantee of an impartial jury and a fair trial. If a defendant is tried before a qualified jury composed of individuals not challengeable for cause, the loss of a peremptory challenge due to a state court's good-faith error is not a matter of federal constitutional concern. Just as state law controls the existence and exercise of peremptory challenges, so state law determines the consequences of an erroneous denial of such a challenge. Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. ___, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2009).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. If the issue of jury bias surfaces during or before trial, it is the trial judge's responsibility to conduct an adequate investigation, given the unsatisfactory character of an inquiry into jury bias after the trial is over and the defendant convicted. The question is whether, given the indications of jury bias, the judge's inquiry was adequate. Adequacy is a function of the probability of bias; the greater that probability, the more searching the inquiry needed to make reasonably sure that an unbiased jury is impaneled. Oswald v. Bertrand, 374 F.3d 475 (2004).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. State v. Louis: A Missed Opportunity to Clarify when Law Enforcement Officials May Serve as Petit Jurors in Criminal Cases. 1992 WLR 757.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT.
Unanimous verdict not constitutionally required in state criminal cases. Johnson, 1973 WLR 926.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant must demand a trial before requesting dismissal for lack of a speedy trial. When delay is caused by numerous proceedings in federal court, dismissal will be denied in the absence of any showing of prejudice. State v. Kwitek, 53 Wis. 2d 563, 193 N.W.2d 682.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A delay of 5 weeks because witnesses were hospitalized, when the defendant was out on bail, did not amount to a failure to receive speedy trial. Taylor v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 168, 197 N.W.2d 805.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Failure to demand a speedy trial is weighs less heavily against a defendant unrepresented by counsel. Because the defendant believed the charge had been dropped, it could not be said that a speedier trial would have prevented anxiety and concern about the pending charges. Hipp v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 621, 250 N.W.2d 299.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The speedy trial provisions of the constitution were designed to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern by the accused, impairment of defenses, and the elimination of the possibility that concurrent sentences will be imposed. Green v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 631, 250 N.W.2d 305.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The controlling case concerning the right to a speedy trial is Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). A 15 month delay was not prejudicial under the facts of the case. Scarbrough v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 87, 250 N.W.2d 354.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A delay of 84 days between the defendant's first court appearance and trial on misdemeanor traffic charges was not so inordinate as to raise a presumption of prejudice. State v. Mullis, 81 Wis. 2d 454, 260 N.W.2d 696.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Mandatory closure of a hearing solely at the request of the complaining witness over the objection of the defendant violates the right to a public trial. Stevens v. Manitowoc Cir. Ct. 141 Wis. 2d 239, 414 N.W.2d 832 (1987).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The speedy trial right attaches when the complaint and warrant are issued. A pretrial determination that the right has been violated may be made only when evidence shows extraordinary circumstances justifying dismissal with prejudice. State v. Lemay, 155 Wis. 2d 202, 455 N.W.2d 233 (1990).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The right to a speedy trial extends from the time of arrest or criminal charging up through the sentencing phase of prosecution. A defendant must show substantial and demonstrable prejudice for a postconviction violation of this right to be found. State v. Allen, 179 Wis. 2d 67, 505 N.W.2d 801 (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Whether there has been a violation of the right to a speedy trial depends on a balancing test considering: 1) the length of delay; 2) the reason for the delay; 3) the defendant's assertion of the right; and 4) prejudice to the defendant. State v. Borhegyi, 222 Wis. 2d 506, 588 N.W.2d 89 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-0567.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The speedy trial clause does not apply to the period before a defendant is indicted, arrested, or otherwise officially accused. The statute of limitations is the primary protection against stale charges. A delay between the commission of a crime and the subsequent arrest of a defendant may violate due process if actual prejudice has been suffered as a result of the delay and the government caused the delay for an improper purpose. State v. Blanck, 2001 WI App 288, 249 Wis. 2d 364, 638 N.W.2d 910, 01-0282.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The length of delay is to some extent a triggering mechanism to a speedy trial determination. Until there is some delay that is presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry. In determining the reasons for a delay, the initial inquiry is who caused the delay. Delay reasonably attributed to the ordinary demands of the judicial system is neither chargeable to the state or defendant. A missing witness presents a valid reason for delay. The state is charged with institutional delay such as when the trial court took responsibility for a delay because it had taken a motion for access to the records off its calendar. State v. Williams, 2004 WI App 56, 270 Wis. 2d 761, 677 N.W.2d 691, 03-0603.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When filed charges are dismissed without prejudice and a second complaint subsequently filed, the time period between the dismissal and the filing of the second complaint is not included in determining whether the constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. The right to a speedy trial is not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by passage of time. That interest is protected primarily by the due process clause and by statutes of limitation. The right is to minimize the possibility of lengthy incarceration prior to trial, to reduce the impairment of liberty imposed on an accused while released on bail, and to shorten the disruption of life caused by arrest and the presence of unresolved criminal charges. Once charges are dismissed, the speedy trial guarantee is no longer applicable. State v. Urdahl, 2005 WI App 191, 286 Wis. 2d 476, 704 N.W.2d 324, 04-3014.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The defendant's right to a public trial was violated when the courthouse doors were locked at 4:30 P.M., pursuant to county policy, and the public was denied access to the courtroom while he presented his case and the state presented its rebuttal. State v. Vanness, 2007 WI App 195, 06-2535.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Although a presumption of openness exists, the right to a public trial is not absolute. The closure of a trial is trivial and does not implicate the 6th amendment if the closure does not implicate the values served by the 6th amendment: 1) to ensure a fair trial; 2) to remind the prosecutor and judge of their responsibility to the accused and the importance of their functions; 3) to encourage witnesses to come forward; and 4) to discourage perjury. A circuit court's exclusion of every family member except the defendant's mother, who did not understand English, plainly implicated the values served by the right to a public trial. State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 761 N.W.2d 612, 07-0005.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Closure of a criminal trial is justified when 4 conditions are met: 1) the party who wishes to close the proceedings must show an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced by a public trial; 2) the closure must be narrowly tailored to protect that interest; 3) alternatives to closure must be considered by the trial court; and 4) the court must make findings sufficient to support the closure. Generally, the best course of action is for the trial judge to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of closure, but it was not necessary under the facts of this case. State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 761 N.W.2d 612, 07-0005.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Delay between arrest and indictment may deny a speedy trial without a showing of actual prejudice. Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant may not, before trial, appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the right to a speedy trial. United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850 (1978).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. No right to a speedy trial arises until charges are pending. United States v. Mac Donald, 456 U.S. 1 (1982).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Any closure of a suppression hearing must advance an overriding interest likely to be prejudiced. Closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest. The court must consider alternatives and make a finding adequate to support closure. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The time during which defendants were neither under indictment nor subjected to any official restraint does not weigh toward a defendant's speedy trial claims. United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (1986).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The speedy-trial right is "amorphous," "slippery," and "necessarily relative." There is a balancing test in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed. Some of the factors that courts should weigh include length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the defendant. The attorney is the defendant's agent when acting, or failing to act, in furtherance of the litigation, and delay caused by the defendant's counsel is charged against the defendant. The same principle applies whether counsel is privately retained or publicly assigned. Assigned counsel's failure to move the case forward does not warrant attribution of delay to the state. However, delay resulting from a systemic breakdown in the public defender system could be charged to the state. Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. ____ (2009).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Following guilty plea, defendant could not raise speedy trial issue. United States v. Gaertner, 583 F.2d 308 (1978).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT.
The press and public have a 1st amendment right to access to attend criminal trial which cannot be closed absent an overriding interest. 64 MLR 717 (1981).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant may waive his right to be present at a proceeding when the court ordered his case consolidated with another. It is not error at the start of a trial to revoke bail and remand the defendant to the custody of the sheriff. Beverly v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 725, 177 N.W.2d 870.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A prisoner held in Dodge County, who escaped from a hospital in another county while being treated there, could be tried for the escape in Dodge County. Dolan v. State, 48 Wis. 2d 696, 180 N.W.2d 623.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The defendant is not prejudiced when the court amends the charge against him to charge a lesser included offense without informing him of the nature of the amended charge or allowing him to plead to it. Moore v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 1, 197 N.W.2d 820.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. It is not a violation of the defendant's rights if he is prosecuted by information and not by grand jury indictment. State v. Lehtola, 55 Wis. 2d 494, 198 N.W.2d 354.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A defendant is not entitled to be present at a conference in chambers if only questions of law or preliminary matters of procedure are discussed. Leroux v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 671, 207 N.W.2d 589.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Participation of the state in promulgating adverse publicity is relevant in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a venue change. Briggs v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 313, 251 N.W.2d 12.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Only the defendant may waive the right to venue where the crime was committed. State v. Mendoza, 80 Wis. 2d 122, 258 N.W.2d 260.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. When the defendant was not relying on an alibi defense and did not file a notice of alibi, the court did not abuse its discretion in barring alibi testimony. State v. Burroughs, 117 Wis. 2d 293, 344 N.W.2d 149 (1984).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. If the defendant acquiesces in counsel's decision that the defendant not testify, the defendant's right to testify is waived. State v. Albright, 96 Wis. 2d 122, 291 N.W.2d 487 (1980).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Constitutional error is harmless if the court can declare its belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the conviction. State v. Brecht, 143 Wis. 2d 297, 421 N.W.2d 96 (1988).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Two factors determine the sufficiency of a criminal charge: 1) whether it states an offense to which the defendant can plead; and 2) whether disposition will bar future prosecution for the same offense. Additional factors are discussed. State v. Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d 244, 426 N.W.2d 91 (Ct. App. 1988).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A judge's bias against counsel must be severe to translate into unconstitutional partiality against a litigant. State v. Hollingsworth, 160 Wis. 2d 883, 467 N.W.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Rule for pleadings in criminal obscenity cases are the same as for all other criminal cases. If a pleading fails to set forth all elements of a crime but includes correct citations, all elements are sufficiently alleged. State v. Petrone, 161 Wis. 2d 530, 468 N.W.2d 676 (1991).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Notice of the nature and cause of the accusations is a key factor in determining whether an amendment at trial has prejudiced a defendant. The inquiry is whether the new charge is so related to the transaction and facts adduced at the preliminary hearing that a defendant cannot be surprised by the new charge since the preparation for the new charge would be no different than the preparation for the old charge. State v. Neudorff, 170 Wis. 2d 608, 489 N.W.2d 689 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A criminal defendant's right to testify is fundamental. In order to determine whether a criminal defendant is waiving the right to testify, a circuit court should conduct an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant outside the presence of the jury consisting of a basic inquiry to ensure that the defendant is aware of his or her right to testify, and the defendant has discussed this right with counsel. State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85, 263 Wis. 2d 434, 666 N.W.2d 485, 01-1746.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. Following an unchallenged colloquy wherein the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to testify, the defendant's failure to seek an offer of proof at the time of trial or in the postconviction motion operated as a waiver of the right to have decided the issue of whether the waiver to testify could be withdrawn. State v. Winters, 2009 WI App 48, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, 08-0910.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. A law providing state-wide venue for certain sex crimes would be unconstitutional. 60 Atty. Gen. 450.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT. The absolute prohibition of paralegal-conducted jail interviews is an unjustifiable restriction of inmates' due process right of access to the courts. Restrictions on such interviews must be justified by a compelling and overwhelming state interest. 64 Atty. Gen. 152.
Article I, §7 - ANNOT.
The trial court's wholesale exclusion of the defendant's proffered expert and lay testimony regarding post-traumatic stress disorder from the guilt phase of a murder without valid justification violated the defendant's right to present a defense and to testify on her own behalf. Morgan v. Krenke, 72 F. Supp. 2d 980 (1999).
Article I, §8 Prosecutions; double jeopardy; self-incrimination; bail; habeas corpus. Section 8. [As amended Nov. 1870 and April 1981] Article I, §8 ¶(1) (1) No person may be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law, and no person for the same offense may be put twice in jeopardy of punishment, nor may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself.
Article I, §8 ¶(2) (2) All persons, before conviction, shall be eligible for release under reasonable conditions designed to assure their appearance in court, protect members of the community from serious bodily harm or prevent the intimidation of witnesses. Monetary conditions of release may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the conditions are necessary to assure appearance in court. The legislature may authorize, by law, courts to revoke a person's release for a violation of a condition of release.
Article I, §8 ¶(3) (3) The legislature may by law authorize, but may not require, circuit courts to deny release for a period not to exceed 10 days prior to the hearing required under this subsection to a person who is accused of committing a murder punishable by life imprisonment or a sexual assault punishable by a maximum imprisonment of 20 years, or who is accused of committing or attempting to commit a felony involving serious bodily harm to another or the threat of serious bodily harm to another and who has a previous conviction for committing or attempting to commit a felony involving serious bodily harm to another or the threat of serious bodily harm to another. The legislature may authorize by law, but may not require, circuit courts to continue to deny release to those accused persons for an additional period not to exceed 60 days following the hearing required under this subsection, if there is a requirement that there be a finding by the court based on clear and convincing evidence presented at a hearing that the accused committed the felony and a requirement that there be a finding by the court that available conditions of release will not adequately protect members of the community from serious bodily harm or prevent intimidation of witnesses. Any law enacted under this subsection shall be specific, limited and reasonable. In determining the 10-day and 60-day periods, the court shall omit any period of time found by the court to result from a delay caused by the defendant or a continuance granted which was initiated by the defendant.
Article I, §8 ¶(4) (4) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires it. [
1869 J.R. 7; 1870 J.R. 3; 1870 c. 118; vote Nov. 1870; 1979 J.R. 76, 1981 J.R. 8, vote April 1981]
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When, after a plea bargain, the state filed an amended complaint to which the defendant pled guilty, but the court refused to accept the plea and reinstated the complaint then later reinstated the amended complaint, the defendant could not claim double jeopardy. Salters v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 708, 191 N.W.2d 19.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The defense of double jeopardy is nonjurisdictional and is waived by a guilty plea intelligently and voluntarily entered. Nelson v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 769, 193 N.W.2d 704.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A person is not put in double jeopardy because of convictions in separate trials of resisting an officer and of battery to an officer, even though the acts charged arose from the same incident. State v. Elbaum, 54 Wis. 2d 213, 194 N.W.2d 660.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When the defendant is tried for one offense and convicted of a lesser included offense the defendant is not placed in double jeopardy. Dunn v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 192, 197 N.W.2d 749.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A defendant is not subjected to double jeopardy when brought to trial a 2nd time after a mistrial is declared. State v. Elkinton, 56 Wis. 2d 497, 202 N.W.2d 28.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A defendant is not subjected to double jeopardy by being charged with both theft and burglary. An acquittal on one charge does not amount to collateral estoppel on the other. Hebel v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 325, 210 N.W.2d 695.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A defendant convicted of false imprisonment and rape committed in Waukesha county was not subjected to double jeopardy by a 2nd conviction for false imprisonment of the same victim in Milwaukee county, because the facts supported 2 separate prosecutions. Baldwin v. State, 62 Wis. 2d 521, 215 N.W.2d 541.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When a trial is terminated prior to a determination of guilt or innocence, the double jeopardy clause does not prevent a retrial if there was a "manifest necessity" to terminate the proceedings because the indictment or information was fatally defective and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try the case. State v. Russo, 70 Wis. 2d 169, 233 N.W.2d 485.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A defendant convicted of fleeing an officer in Portage County was not put in double jeopardy by a second conviction for fleeing a Wood County officer when the defendant crossed the county line during a chase. State v. Van Meter, 72 Wis. 2d 754, 242 N.W.2d 206.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When the perjured testimony of a key state witness was not offered by the prosecution for the purpose of provoking a mistrial and thus avoiding a probable acquittal, a retrial after the conviction was vacated did not place the defendant in double jeopardy. Day v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 588, 251 N.W.2d 811.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Neither the double jeopardy clause nor the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes parole revocation on the grounds of a parolee's conduct related to an alleged crime for which the parolee was charged and acquitted. State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis. 2d 376, 260 N.W.2d 727.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When a mistrial requested by the defendant is justified by prosecutorial or judicial overreaching intended to prompt the request, the double jeopardy clause bars reprosecution. State v. Harrell, 85 Wis. 2d 331, 270 N.W.2d 428 (Ct. App. 1978).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The double jeopardy provisions of the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions are identical in scope and purpose. U.S. Supreme Court decisions control both provisions. Multiplicitous rape charges are discussed. Harrell v. State, 88 Wis. 2d 546, 277 N.W.2d 462 (1979).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When the court of appeals reversed the defendant's conviction due to insufficiency of the evidence, the double jeopardy clause did not bar the supreme court from reviewing the case. State v. Bowden, 93 Wis. 2d 574, 288 N.W.2d 139 (1980).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When a crime is against persons rather than property, there are as many offenses as victims. State v. Rabe, 96 Wis. 2d 48, 291 N.W.2d 809 (1980).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A prosecutor's repeated failure to disclose prior statements of witnesses was not prosecutorial overreaching that would bar reprosecution after the defendant moved for a mistrial. State v. Copening, 100 Wis. 2d 700, 303 N.W.2d 821 (1981).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Two sentences for one crime violate the double jeopardy clause. State v. Upchurch, 101 Wis. 2d 329, 305 N.W.2d 57 (1981).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The trial court properly declared a mistrial due to a juror's injury. State v. Mendoza, 101 Wis. 2d 654, 305 N.W.2d 166 (Ct. App. 1981).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The double jeopardy clause did not bar retrial when the judge declared a mistrial due to jury deadlock. State v. DuFrame, 107 Wis. 2d 300, 320 N.W.2d 210 (Ct. App. 1982).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The double jeopardy clause did not bar prosecution of a charge after it was considered as evidence of character in sentencing the defendant on a prior unrelated conviction. State v. Jackson, 110 Wis. 2d 548, 329 N.W.2d 182 (1983).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Without clear legislative intent to the contrary, multiple punishment may not be imposed for felony-murder and the underlying felony. State v. Gordon, 111 Wis. 2d 133, 330 N.W.2d 564 (1983).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Reimposition of a sentence after the defendant has been placed on probation, absent violation of probation condition, violates the double jeopardy clause. State v. Dean, 111 Wis. 2d 361, 330 N.W.2d 630 (Ct. App. 1983).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Governmental action is punishment under the double jeopardy clause if its principal purpose is punishment, retribution, or deterrence. When the principal purpose is nonpunitive, that a punitive motive may also be present does not make the action punishment. State v. Killebrew, 115 Wis. 2d 243, 340 N.W.2d 470 (1983).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When probation was conditioned on the defendant's voluntary commitment to a mental hospital but the hospital refused admittance, the court properly modified the original sentence by imposing a new sentence of 3 years' imprisonment. Double jeopardy was not violated. State v. Sepulveda, 120 Wis. 2d 231, 353 N.W.2d 790 (1984).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The double jeopardy clause was not violated when the trial court imposed illegal sentences then, in resentencing on a valid conviction, imposed an increased sentence. State v. Martin, 121 Wis. 2d 670, 360 N.W.2d 43 (1985).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When police confiscated a large quantity of drugs from an empty house and the next day searched the defendant upon his return home confiscating a small quantity of the same drugs, the defendant's conviction for a lesser-included offense of possession and greater offense of possession with intent to deliver did not constitute double jeopardy. State v. Stevens, 123 Wis. 2d 303, 367 N.W.2d 788 (1985).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The double jeopardy clause was not violated by a state criminal prosecution for conduct that was the basis of a prior remedial civil forfeiture proceeding by a municipality. Collateral estoppel does not bar a criminal prosecution following a guilty plea to a violation of municipal ordinances, even if both actions arise from the same transaction. State v. Kramsvogel, 124 Wis. 2d 101, 369 N.W.2d 145 (1985). See also State v. Thierfelder, 174 Wis. 2d 213, 495 N.W.2d 669 (1993).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A person may be convicted under s. 943.20 (1) (a) for concealing property and be separately convicted for transferring that property. State v. Tappa, 127 Wis. 2d 155, 378 N.W.2d 883 (1985).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Where the trial court declined to acquit the defendant but dismissed the criminal information after the jury deadlocked, double jeopardy barred the state's appeal of the dismissal. State v. Turely, 128 Wis. 2d 39, 381 N.W.2d 309 (1986).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The defendant waived a double jeopardy claim when failing to move for a dismissal of the charges at a retrial following a mistrial to which the defendant objected. State v. Mink, 146 Wis. 2d 1, 429 N.W.2d 99 (Ct. App. 1988).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A criminal prosecution for escape is not barred by the double jeopardy clause when commenced following an administrative disciplinary proceeding. State v. Quiroz, 149 Wis. 2d 691, 439 N.W.2d 621 (Ct. App. 1989).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A court may not, after accepting a guilty plea and ordering a presentence investigation, absent fraud or a party's intentionally withholding material information, vacate the plea and order reinstatement of the original information without violating the double jeopardy clause. State v. Comstock, 168 Wis. 2d 915, 485 N.W.2d 354 (1992).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Whether multiple charges constitute double jeopardy is discussed. State v. Sauceda, 168 Wis. 2d 486, 485 N.W.2d 1 (1992).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. For a defendant to invoke double jeopardy protection after successfully moving for a mistrial, the prosecutor must have acted with intent to subvert the double jeopardy protection to gain another chance to convict or to harass the defendant with multiple prosecutions. State v. Quinn, 169 Wis. 2d 620, 486 N.W.2d 542 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Charges are multiplicitous if they are identical both in law and fact or if the legislature intended the allowable unit of prosecution for the offense to be a single count. State v. Davis, 171 Wis. 2d 711, 492 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1992).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Multiple prosecutions for a continuous failure to pay child support are allowed. State v. Grayson, 172 Wis. 2d 156, 493 N.W.2d 23 (1992).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn. Granting a mistrial, dismissing the jury and convening a 2nd jury is prohibited absent "manifest necessity." Granting a mistrial due to the unavailability of a prosecution witness is to be given the most stringent scrutiny. Alternatives to mistrials are to be considered. State v. Barthels, 174 Wis. 2d 173, 495 N.W.2d 341 (1993).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. First offender OMVWI prosecution is civil, and jeopardy does not attach to prevent a subsequent criminal prosecution. State v. Thierfelder, 174 Wis. 2d 213, 495 N.W.2d 669 (1993).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The state supreme court will not interpret Wisconsin's double jeopardy clause to be broader than the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal clause. State v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis. 2d 502, 509 N.W.2d 712 (1993).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A criminal conviction for violating terms of bail resulting from the conviction for another crime committed while released on bail does not constitute double jeopardy. State v. West, 181 Wis. 2d 792, 512 N.W.2d 207 (Ct. App. 1993).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Collateral estoppel is incorporated into the protection against double jeopardy and provides that when an ultimate issue of fact has once been determined, that issue cannot be relitigated between the same parties. The test is whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon a separate issue. State v. Jacobs, 186 Wis. 2d 219, 519 N.W.2d 746 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. To determine whether charges are improperly multiplicitous the following two-prong test is applied: 1) whether the charged offenses are identical in law and fact; and 2) the legislative intent as to the allowable unit of prosecution for the offense. State v. Richter, 189 Wis. 2d 105, 525 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1994).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. An acquittal does not prove innocence. Evidence of a crime for which a defendant was acquitted may be offered to show motive, plan, and other matters authorized under s. 904.04 if a jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the other act. State v. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d 107, 528 N.W.2d 36 (Ct. App. 1995).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The extension of a previously entered juvenile dispositional order due to the juvenile's participation in an armed robbery while subject to the order was not a "disposition" of the armed robbery charge. Subsequent prosecution of the armed robbery charge in adult court did not violate s. 48.39 [now s. 938.39] or the protection against double jeopardy. State v. Stephens, 201 Wis. 2d 82, 548 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2103.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Whether a statute is criminal or civil for purposes of double jeopardy analysis depends on whether the legislature intended the statute to provide a remedial civil sanction and whether there are aspects of the statute that are so punitive either in effect or nature as to render the overall purpose punishment. State v. McMaster, 206 Wis. 2d 30, 556 N.W.2d 673 (1996), 95-1159.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Student disciplinary action under University of Wisconsin system administrative rules does not constitute punishment triggering double jeopardy protection. City of Oshkosh v. Winkler, 206 Wis. 2d 538, 557 N.W.2d 464 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0967.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Service in prison of time successfully served on parole and forfeited through revocation does not constitute punishment within the meaning of the double jeopardy clause. State ex rel. Ludtke v. DOC, 215 Wis. 2d 1, 572 N.W.2d 864 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1745.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A defendant may be charged and convicted of multiple crimes arising out of one criminal act only if the legislature intends it. When one charged offense is not a lesser included offense of the other, there is a presumption that the legislature intended to allow punishment for both offenses, which is rebutted only if other factors clearly indicate a contrary intent. State v. Lechner, 217 Wis. 2d 392, 576 N.W.2d 912 (1998), 96-2830.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Whether a single course of conduct has been impermissibly divided into separate violations of the same statute requires consideration of whether each offense is identical in fact and law and whether the legislature intended to allow multiple convictions. For each victim there is generally a separate offense. Legislative intent is shown by whether the statute punishes an individual for each act or for the course of conduct those acts constitute. State v. Lechner, 217 Wis. 2d 392, 576 N.W.2d 912 (1998), 96-2830.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The protection against double jeopardy embraces the defendant's right of having his or her trial completed by a particular tribunal. When the state moves for a mistrial over the objections of the defense, the trial court may not grant the motion unless there is a manifest necessity for the act. State v. Collier, 220 Wis. 2d 825, 584 N.W.2d 689 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-2589.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The double jeopardy clause prevents retrial when there was no motion for a mistrial but prosecutorial misconduct, the motivation for and effect of which were not known to the defendant at trial, had been committed. State v. Lettice, 221 Wis. 2d 69, 585 N.W.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3708.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Multiple criminal punishments are appropriate for multiple acts, but not multiple thoughts. Multiple punishments for a single act of enticement when the defendant intended to commit multiple illegal acts was not allowable. State v. Church, 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3140.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. If the legislature unambiguously has enacted 2 distinct prohibitions, each requiring proof of an element the other does not, the Blockburger presumption of intent to allow multiple punishment applies. But when the statue is language is ambiguous, the rule of lenity applies, requiring resolving the ambiguity against allowing multiple punishment. State v. Church, 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), 97-3140.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Double jeopardy was not violated when the trial court realized it made an error in speech in pronouncing sentence and took immediate steps to correct the sentence before the judgment was entered into the record. State v. Burt, 2000 WI App 126, 237 Wis. 2d 610, 614 N.W.2d 42, 99-1209.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Double jeopardy prevents a court that, under a mistaken view of the law, entered a valid concurrent sentence from revising the sentence 3 moths later to be a consecutive sentence. State v. Willett, 2000 WI App 212, 238 Wis. 2d 621, 618 N.W.2d 881, 99-2671.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A defendant was not subjected to double jeopardy when, after a presentence investigation following a no contest plea, the court took the defendant's plea for a second time and engaged the defendant in a colloquy to determine if the plea was knowing and intelligent. For double jeopardy to apply, an acquittal or dismissal followed by a second prosecution for the same offense is required. State v. Clark, 2000 WI App 245, 239 Wis. 2d 417, 620 N.W.2d 435, 00-0932.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Issue preclusion does not bar the prosecution of a defendant for perjury who was tried and acquitted on a single issue when newly discovered evidence suggests that the defendant falsely testified on the issue. The state must show that: 1) the evidence came to the state's evidence after trial; 2) the state was not negligent in failing to discover the evidence; 3) the evidence is material to the issue; and 4) the evidence is not merely cumulative. State v. Canon, 2001 WI 11, 241 Wis. 2d 164, 622 N.W.2d 270, 98-3519.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A lesser included offense must be both lesser and included. An offense with a heavier penalty cannot be regarded as a lesser offense than one with a lighter penalty. State v. Smits, 2001 WI App 45, 241 Wis. 2d 374, 626 N.W.2d 42, 00-1158.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When a defendant claims the state did not present enough evidence at trial to support splitting a course of conduct into multiple violations of the same statute, a multiplicity objection is waived if it is not raised prior to the time the case is submitted to the jury. State v. Koller, 2001 WI App 253, 248 Wis. 2d 259, 635 N.W.2d 838, 99-3084.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When a defendant repudiates a negotiated plea agreement on the ground that it contains multiplicitous counts, the defendant materially and substantially breaches the agreement. When an accused successfully challenges a plea to and a conviction on multiplicity grounds and the information has been amended pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement by which the state made charging concessions, ordinarily the remedy is to reverse the convictions and sentences, vacate the plea agreement, and reinstate the original information, but a different remedy may be appropriate. State v. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, 249 Wis. 2d 553, 638 N.W.2d 564, 00-2435.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A court's correction of an invalid sentence by increasing the punishment does not constitute double jeopardy; the initial sentence being invalid, the second, more severe sentence is the only valid sentence imposed. State v. Helm, 2002 WI App 154, 256 Wis. 2d 285, 647 N.W.2d 405, 01-2398.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. If a defendant makes a fraudulent representation to the court, which the court accepts and relies upon in granting a sentence, the court may later declare the sentence void. Double jeopardy does not bar a subsequently increased sentence. State v. Jones, 2002 WI App 208, 257 Wis. 2d. 163, 650 N.W.2d 855, 01-2969.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. There is a spectrum of deference that appellate courts may apply to trial court findings of mistrials ranging from strictest scrutiny to the greatest deference, depending on the circumstances. However, even if the mistrial order is entitled to great deference, the reviewing court must find that the trial judge exercised sound discretion in concluding that the state satisfied its burden of showing a manifest necessity for the mistrial. State v. Seefeldt, 2003 WI 47, 261 Wis. 2d 383, 661 N.W.2d 822, 01-1969.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Trial courts may correct obvious errors in sentencing when it is clear that a good faith mistake was made in an initial sentencing pronouncement, the court promptly recognizes the error, and the court, by reducing an erroneous original sentence on one count and increasing the original sentence on another, seeks to impose a lawfully structured sentence that achieves the overall disposition that the court originally intended. State v. Gruetzmacher, 2004 WI 55, 271 Wis. 2d 585, 679 N.W.2d 533, 02-3014.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. In a multi-count trial, if the defendant is convicted of one or more counts and acquitted of one or more counts, and the defendant successfully appeals the conviction or convictions, the acquittals pose no direct bar to retrying the defendant. Rather, acquittal may indirectly impact the state's ability to retry the defendant under collateral estoppel principles. State v. Henning, 2004 WI 89, 273 Wis. 2d 352, 681 N.W.2d 871, 02-1287.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The state's attempt to retry the defendant for armed robbery alleging the use of a different weapon after a trial court conclusion that an acquittal on a first armed robbery charge resulted from insufficient evidence of the use of a gun violated double jeopardy protections. It did not necessarily follow that the state was prevented from pursuing a charge of simple robbery however. Losey v. Frank, 268 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (2003).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A guilty plea waives a multiplicity claim anytime the claim cannot be resolved on the record, regardless whether a case presents on direct appeal or collateral attack. State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, 294 Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886, 03-3055.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. Retrial is barred when a defendant moves for and obtains a mistrial due to prosecutorial overreaching when the prosecutor intentionally attempts to prejudice the defendant or create another chance to convict. A police officer's testimony that forms the basis of a mistrial will not be imputed to the prosecutor in the absence of evidence of collusion by the prosecutor's office intended to provoke the defendant to move for a mistrial and does not constitute prosecutorial overreaching barring a retrial. State v. Jaimes, 2006 WI App 93, 292 Wis. 2d 656, 715 N.W.2d 669, 05-1511.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. The defendant's argument that his conviction on two bail-jumping counts was multiplicitous because the preliminary hearings at which he failed to appear were scheduled for the same time and he had signed only one bond for the two underlying cases failed because the counts were different in fact. Proof of notification and failure to appear in one case would not prove notification and failure to appear in the other, making the two charges different in nature and therefore different in fact. State v. Eaglefeathers, 2009 WI App 2, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 762 N.W.2d 690, 07-0845.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When the judge dismissed a charge after the jury returned a guilty verdict, the prosecution's appeal did not constitute double jeopardy. United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When a juvenile court found the defendant guilty but unfit for treatment as a juvenile, the defendant would be put in double jeopardy if tried in a criminal court. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. A guilty plea does not waive the defense of double jeopardy. Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61.
Article I, §8 - ANNOT. When defense counsel's improper opening statement prompted the trial judge to grant a mistrial over defense objections, and when the record provided sufficient justification for the mistrial ruling, the judge's failure to make explicit findings of "manifest necessity" did not support the defendant's claim of double jeopardy. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978).
Article I, §8 - ANNOT.
The protection ag