probation revocation hearing in Wisconsin

17 Wisconsin opinions name it 3 courts 1971–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Evansgreen wis · 1977 · cited in 5 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1979–2015 2 sentences 2002We held that compelled admissions about particular instances of criminal activity by a probationer given in response to questions by a probation agent or at a probation revocation hearing are inadmissible against the probationer in subsequent criminal proceedings. 7 Id. at 235-36 . 1988In State v. Evans , 77 Wis.2d 225 , 252 N.W.2d 664 (1977), the court resolved the issue of a defendant's fifth amendment rights being sacrificed by statements made to a probation officer by holding that: [S]tatements or the fruits of statements made by a probationer to his probation agent or in a probation revocation hearing in response to questions which, as here, are the result of pending charges or accusations of particular criminal activity, may not be used to incriminate the probationer in a subsequent criminal proceeding.	2	5
State Ex Rel. Russell v. McGlothingreen fladistctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000Russell v. McGlothin, 427 So. 2d 280, 282 (Fla. Dist.	1	1
Selph v. Stategreen ark · 1978 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000You shall not enter into any dating, intimate, or sexual relationship with any person without first discussing this with your agent and obtaining your agent's approval. 2 Our holding is in accord with the majority of courts that have considered this question, although some of those cases address the corroboration requirement under the law of corpus delecti — not under the specific language of the rule as set out in Holt v. State, 17 Wis. 2d 468, 480 , 117 N.W.2d 626 (1962), which requires "corroboration of any significant fact." See State v. Lay, 546 P.2d 41, 42 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976); Selph v.	1	1
State v. Laygreen arizctapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000You shall not enter into any dating, intimate, or sexual relationship with any person without first discussing this with your agent and obtaining your agent's approval. 2 Our holding is in accord with the majority of courts that have considered this question, although some of those cases address the corroboration requirement under the law of corpus delecti — not under the specific language of the rule as set out in Holt v. State, 17 Wis. 2d 468, 480 , 117 N.W.2d 626 (1962), which requires "corroboration of any significant fact." See State v. Lay, 546 P.2d 41, 42 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976); Selph v.	1	1
People v. Monettegreen calctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000You shall not enter into any dating, intimate, or sexual relationship with any person without first discussing this with your agent and obtaining your agent's approval. 2 Our holding is in accord with the majority of courts that have considered this question, although some of those cases address the corroboration requirement under the law of corpus delecti — not under the specific language of the rule as set out in Holt v. State, 17 Wis. 2d 468, 480 , 117 N.W.2d 626 (1962), which requires "corroboration of any significant fact." See State v. Lay, 546 P.2d 41, 42 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976); Selph v.	1	1
Hayes v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Hayes v. State, 343 So. 2d 672, 672-73 (Fla. Dist.	1	1
State v. McKinneygreen wisctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993In State v. McKinney, 168 Wis. 2d 349, 352 , 483 N.W.2d 595, 596 (Ct. App. 1992), a probation officer placed the defendant in custody pending a probation revocation hearing for possession of a firearm. 1993In State v. McKinney, 168 Wis. 2d 349, 352 , 483 N.W.2d 595, 596 (Ct. App. 1992), a probation officer placed the defendant in custody pending a probation revocation hearing for possession of a firearm.	1	1
People v. Andersongreen colo · 1975 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) 53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) 53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1
State v. Velasquezgreen utah · 1983 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evidence 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) *53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1
State v. Pinsongreen idahoctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) 53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) 53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1
United States v. Louis B. Scottgreen ca5 · 1982 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evidence 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) *53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1
State v. Earnestgreen minn · 1980 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evidence 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) *53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1
State v. Fieldsgreen haw · 1984 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evidence 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) *53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1
Clifford v. Latta v. C. J. Fitzharrisgreen ca9 · 1975 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evidence 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) *53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1
State v. Simmsgreen washctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) 53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) 53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1
State Ex Rel. Hanson v. Department of Health & Social Servicesgreen wis · 1974 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 2 sentences 1980Hanson v. H&SS Dept., 64 Wis.2d 367, 374 , 219 N.W.2d 267, 271-72 (1974) (probation may be revoked for reasons not asserted when extraditing probationers ; extradition proceeding not subject to collateral attack in a probation revocation hearing). 1980Hanson v. H&SS Dept., 64 Wis.2d 367, 374 , 219 N.W.2d 267, 271-72 (1974) (probation may be revoked for reasons not asserted when extraditing probationers ; extradition proceeding not subject to collateral attack in a probation revocation hearing).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Gagnon v. Scarpelli red scotus · 1973 2 sentences 1988Id. at 787 . 1977The criteria to be applied by the revocation authority in deciding whether to allow counsel were set out in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 , 36 L.	2	1977–1988
Huggett v. State green wis · 1978 2 sentences 2009In Huggett v. State, 83 Wis.2d 790 , 266 N.W.2d 403 (1978), this court addressed a situation where a defendant 517 had her probation extended for continued payment of restitution even though she had initially made a good faith effort by making some payments and lacked the capacity to keep up with the payments. [22] This court remanded for a new probation revocation hearing on the grounds that extending probation solely for nonpayment of restitution was not permissible where the defendant had made a good faith effort but did not have the ability to pay the amount ordered: If the probationer la 2009In Huggett v. State, 83 Wis.2d 790 , 266 N.W.2d 403 (1978), this court addressed a situation where a defendant 517 had her probation extended for continued payment of restitution even though she had initially made a good faith effort by making some payments and lacked the capacity to keep up with the payments. [22] This court remanded for a new probation revocation hearing on the grounds that extending probation solely for nonpayment of restitution was not permissible where the defendant had made a good faith effort but did not have the ability to pay the amount ordered: If the probationer la	1	2009–2009
State v. Garner green wis · 1972 2 sentences 2003Garner, 54 Wis. 2d at 104 , 194 N.W.2d at 651 . 2003Garner, 54 Wis. 2d at 104 , 194 N.W.2d at 651 .	1	2003–2003
State Ex Rel. Tate v. Schwarz neutral wisctapp · 2001 1 sentence 2002Id. at ¶ 14, 246 Wis. 2d at 301 .	1	2002–2002
Holt v. State green wis · 1962 2 sentences 2000You shall not enter into any dating, intimate, or sexual relationship with any person without first discussing this with your agent and obtaining your agent's approval. 2 Our holding is in accord with the majority of courts that have considered this question, although some of those cases address the corroboration requirement under the law of corpus delecti — not under the specific language of the rule as set out in Holt v. State, 17 Wis. 2d 468, 480 , 117 N.W.2d 626 (1962), which requires "corroboration of any significant fact." See State v. Lay, 546 P.2d 41, 42 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976); Selph v. 2000You shall not enter into any dating, intimate, or sexual relationship with any person without first discussing this with your agent and obtaining your agent's approval. 2 Our holding is in accord with the majority of courts that have considered this question, although some of those cases address the corroboration requirement under the law of corpus delecti — not under the specific language of the rule as set out in Holt v. State, 17 Wis. 2d 468, 480 , 117 N.W.2d 626 (1962), which requires "corroboration of any significant fact." See State v. Lay, 546 P.2d 41, 42 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976); Selph v.	1	2000–2000
Neugebauer v. United States green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evidence 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) *53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1986–1986
People v. Huntley green ny · 1977 2 sentences 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) 53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid 1986See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 678 F.2d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1982); Latta v. Fitzharris, 521 F.2d 246, 250 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 897 (1975); People v. Anderson, 189 Colo. 34 , 536 P.2d 302, 305 (1975); State v. Fields, 686 P.2d 1379, 1389-1390 (Hawaii 1984); State v. Pinson, 104 Idaho 227 , 657 P.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (Ct. App. 1983) 53 (evidence obtained from a search of the defendant used in a probation revocation hearing); People v. Huntley, 43 N.Y.2d 175 , 371 N.E.2d 794, 796 , 401 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1977); State v. Earnest, 293 N.W.2d 365, 368-369 (Minn. 1980) (evid	1	1986–1986
People v. Coleman green cal · 1975 2 sentences 1977Cf. People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867 , 533 P.2d 1024 , 120 Cal. Rptr. 384 (1975) .” 2 In the Coleman case, the California Supreme Court discussed the limitations on the prosecution’s use of defendant’s testimony at a probation revocation hearing for impeachment purposes at the criminal trial in order to ensure that the probationer’s privilege against self-incrimination is honored. 3 Our court in Wold v. State, 57 Wis.2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), also limits the use of defendant’s statements on impeachment. 1977Cf. People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867 , 533 P.2d 1024 , 120 Cal. Rptr. 384 (1975) .” 2 In the Coleman case, the California Supreme Court discussed the limitations on the prosecution’s use of defendant’s testimony at a probation revocation hearing for impeachment purposes at the criminal trial in order to ensure that the probationer’s privilege against self-incrimination is honored. 3 Our court in Wold v. State, 57 Wis.2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), also limits the use of defendant’s statements on impeachment.	1	1977–1977
Wold v. State green wis · 1973 2 sentences 1977Cf. People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867 , 533 P.2d 1024 , 120 Cal. Rptr. 384 (1975) .” 2 In the Coleman case, the California Supreme Court discussed the limitations on the prosecution’s use of defendant’s testimony at a probation revocation hearing for impeachment purposes at the criminal trial in order to ensure that the probationer’s privilege against self-incrimination is honored. 3 Our court in Wold v. State, 57 Wis.2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), also limits the use of defendant’s statements on impeachment. 1977Cf. People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867 , 533 P.2d 1024 , 120 Cal. Rptr. 384 (1975) .” 2 In the Coleman case, the California Supreme Court discussed the limitations on the prosecution’s use of defendant’s testimony at a probation revocation hearing for impeachment purposes at the criminal trial in order to ensure that the probationer’s privilege against self-incrimination is honored. 3 Our court in Wold v. State, 57 Wis.2d 344, 356 , 204 N.W.2d 482 (1973), also limits the use of defendant’s statements on impeachment.	1	1977–1977
Oestrich v. State neutral wis · 1972 2 sentences 1974Bernal v. Hershman, supra, it was determined that a juvenile had a right to counsel at a proceeding to revoke his liberty under supervision after he had been found delinquent and his custody transferred to the Department of Health & Social Services pursuant to the provisions of the Children’s Code (ch. 48, Wisconsin statutes). 1 In Oestrich v. State, supra, we held an adult probationer was entitled to representation by counsel at a probation revocation hearing in a deferred sentencing situation. 1974Bernal v. Hershman, supra , it was determined that a juvenile had a right to counsel at a proceeding to revoke his liberty under supervision after he had been found delinquent and his custody transferred to the Department of Health & Social Services pursuant to the provisions of the Children's Code (ch. 48, Wisconsin statutes). [1] *411 In Oestrich v. State, supra , we held an adult probationer was entitled to representation by counsel at a probation revocation hearing in a deferred sentencing situation.	1	1974–1974
Mempa v. Rhay green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1972The attorney general concedes that counsel is required at sentencing under the holding in Mempa v. Rhay (1967), 389 U. S. 128 , 88 Sup. Ct. 254, 19 L. 1972The attorney general concedes that counsel is required at sentencing under the holding in Mempa v. Rhay (1967), 389 U. S. 128 , 88 Sup. Ct. 254, 19 L.	1	1972–1972
Escoe v. Zerbst green scotus · 1935 2 sentences 1971Some people would quarrel with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court decided later than the 1935 case of Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U. S. 490 , 55 Sup. Ct. 818, 79 L. 1971Some people would quarrel with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court decided later than the 1935 case of Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U. S. 490 , 55 Sup. Ct. 818, 79 L.	1	1971–1971

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 973.09 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 299 (1971–2026) IN 271 (1973–2025) CA 253 (1968–2026) TN 165 (1980–2026) FL 164 (1966–2026) IL 149 (1969–2026) AL 130 (1970–2026) PA 128 (1973–2026) OH 121 (1963–2026) NC 113 (1979–2026) CT 98 (1987–2026) RI 83 (1974–2024) GA 63 (1972–2026) NM 59 (1995–2026) MA 57 (1979–2026) MO 55 (1978–2024) OR 52 (1971–2025) KS 47 (1980–2025) SC 46 (1981–2023) MD 41 (1968–2025) MI 40 (1972–2024) VA 34 (1985–2025) MN 33 (1984–2024) CO 31 (1974–2025) ID 30 (1967–2025) VT 30 (1986–2025) KY 28 (1979–2026) WA 28 (1972–2024) AZ 28 (1973–2026) NY 24 (1970–2025) LA 23 (1970–2025) AK 23 (1973–2023) WY 19 (1985–2026) WV 18 (1976–2025) UT 17 (1991–2025) WI 17 (1971–2015) MT 17 (1989–2024) NV 14 (1968–2021) DC 14 (1983–2015) AR 14 (1991–2024) MS 14 (1994–2020) IA 13 (1976–2026) HI 10 (1980–2021) ME 10 (1985–2025) ND 10 (1978–2025) NE 10 (1988–2024) NJ 6 (1982–2002) NH 6 (1996–2011) SD 5 (1988–2024) DE 3 (1968–2018)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check