11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2025 9 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, IIIgreen2 sentences2016"Circuit courts and counsel have functioned well using the Shiffra/Green analysis for many years . . . ." Johnson, 353 Wis. 2d 119, ¶12 (per curiam). ¶231 This court is more than simply the sum of its current members. 2016"Circuit courts and counsel have functioned well using the Shiffra/Green analysis for many years . . . ." Johnson, 353 Wis. 2d 119, ¶12 (per curiam). ¶231 This court is more than simply the sum of its current members. | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Rogers Memorial Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2016The court described the exception as "a public policy exception" based on the premise that "no utility can be derived from protecting careless or inappropriate therapists and their practices." Johnson, 283 Wis. 2d 384, ¶¶63, 65 . ¶175 A brief review of existing exceptions to the confidential informant privilege, rape shield law, and therapist-patient privilege demonstrates that the Shiffra/Green framework is not the only context in which courts endeavor to 12 No. 2011AP2680-CR.dtp strike a balance between defendants' constitutional rights and the policies underlying various evidentiary limitat 2016The court described the exception as "a public policy exception" based on the premise that "no utility can be derived from protecting careless or inappropriate therapists and their practices." Johnson, 283 Wis. 2d 384, ¶¶63, 65 . ¶175 A brief review of existing exceptions to the confidential informant privilege, rape shield law, and therapist-patient privilege demonstrates that the Shiffra/Green framework is not the only context in which courts endeavor to 12 No. 2011AP2680-CR.dtp strike a balance between defendants' constitutional rights and the policies underlying various evidentiary limitat | 2 | 2 |
State v. SHIFFRSred2 sentences2023The court did not address trial counsel's failure to obtain the CPS reports because the March 12 report was "the only report of consequence." It held that trial counsel's decision to waive opening statement was not deficient 3Hineman also claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of his attorney's "failing to obtain a defense expert," "failing to file a Shiffra/Green motion," and "failing to move for a mistrial." See State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600 , 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Green, 2002 WI 68 , 253 Wis. 2d 356 , 646 N.W.2d 298 . 2023The court did not address trial counsel's failure to obtain the CPS reports because the March 12 report was "the only report of consequence." It held that trial counsel's decision to waive opening statement was not deficient 3Hineman also claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of his attorney's "failing to obtain a defense expert," "failing to file a Shiffra/Green motion," and "failing to move for a mistrial." See State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600 , 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Green, 2002 WI 68 , 253 Wis. 2d 356 , 646 N.W.2d 298 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. George E. Savagegreen1 sentence2023See id. ¶37 To demonstrate deficient performance, Green “must show that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ considering all the circumstances.” See State v. Shata, 2015 WI 74, ¶56 , 364 Wis. 2d 63 , 868 N.W.2d 93 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Alswager v. Roundy's Inc.green2 sentences2023See Alswager v. Roundy’s Inc., 2005 WI App 3, ¶15 , 278 Wis. 2d 598 , 692 N.W.2d 333 (2004). ¶52 Regardless, Green’s arguments on this point are also undeveloped, as he does not explain how the prosecutor’s statements were either untrue based on the evidence or objectionable under the law. 2023See Alswager v. Roundy’s Inc., 2005 WI App 3, ¶15 , 278 Wis. 2d 598 , 692 N.W.2d 333 (2004). ¶52 Regardless, Green’s arguments on this point are also undeveloped, as he does not explain how the prosecutor’s statements were either untrue based on the evidence or objectionable under the law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hatem M. Shatagreen2 sentences2023See id. ¶37 To demonstrate deficient performance, Green “must show that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ considering all the circumstances.” See State v. Shata, 2015 WI 74, ¶56 , 364 Wis. 2d 63 , 868 N.W.2d 93 (citations omitted). 2023See id. ¶37 To demonstrate deficient performance, Green “must show that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective standard of reasonableness’ considering all the circumstances.” See State v. Shata, 2015 WI 74, ¶56 , 364 Wis. 2d 63 , 868 N.W.2d 93 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. David Hollygreen1 sentence2021See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988); United States v. Holly, 940 F.3d 995, 1002 (7th Cir. 2019) (holding that an officer’s failure to follow-up 7 No. 2020AP1529-CR on a surveillance video “may have been negligent, but it does not prove animus or a conscious effort to suppress the video”). ¶23 Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Green’s motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing.4 II. | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Youngbloodgreen1 sentence2021See Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988); United States v. Holly, 940 F.3d 995, 1002 (7th Cir. 2019) (holding that an officer’s failure to follow-up 7 No. 2020AP1529-CR on a surveillance video “may have been negligent, but it does not prove animus or a conscious effort to suppress the video”). ¶23 Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Green’s motion to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing.4 II. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Green
green
2 sentences2023The court did not address trial counsel's failure to obtain the CPS reports because the March 12 report was "the only report of consequence." It held that trial counsel's decision to waive opening statement was not deficient 3Hineman also claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of his attorney's "failing to obtain a defense expert," "failing to file a Shiffra/Green motion," and "failing to move for a mistrial." See State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600 , 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Green, 2002 WI 68 , 253 Wis. 2d 356 , 646 N.W.2d 298 . 2023The court did not address trial counsel's failure to obtain the CPS reports because the March 12 report was "the only report of consequence." It held that trial counsel's decision to waive opening statement was not deficient 3Hineman also claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because of his attorney's "failing to obtain a defense expert," "failing to file a Shiffra/Green motion," and "failing to move for a mistrial." See State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600 , 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Green, 2002 WI 68 , 253 Wis. 2d 356 , 646 N.W.2d 298 . | 4 | 2016–2023 |
Williams v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2025DiFrances likens this case to Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), asserting his attorney’s failure to investigate was based on counsel’s erroneous belief that he could only pursue the victim’s mental health records through Shiffra/Green. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Solberg
green
2 sentences2025Id. ¶16 Adams points to eight pages of school records that were not initially disclosed and, in his view, bear upon Jennifer’s credibility and competency. 6 The 5 State v. Solberg, 211 Wis. 2d 372 , 564 N.W.2d 775 (1997) was overruled by Johnson, at least insofar as it represented an approval of the Shiffra/Green framework. 6 Because the school records remain confidential, we discuss them only at a high level of generality. 7 No. 2020AP1866-CR analysis called for under WIS. 2025Id. ¶16 Adams points to eight pages of school records that were not initially disclosed and, in his view, bear upon Jennifer’s credibility and competency. 6 The 5 State v. Solberg, 211 Wis. 2d 372 , 564 N.W.2d 775 (1997) was overruled by Johnson, at least insofar as it represented an approval of the Shiffra/Green framework. 6 Because the school records remain confidential, we discuss them only at a high level of generality. 7 No. 2020AP1866-CR analysis called for under WIS. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2024“A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Id. ¶15 To prove prejudice, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 9 McMath also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a Shiffra/Green motion, but as we explained, those cases were overruled, and “[c]ounsel does not perform deficiently by fail | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Shaun M. Sanders
green
2 sentences2024“A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Id. ¶15 To prove prejudice, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 9 McMath also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a Shiffra/Green motion, but as we explained, those cases were overruled, and “[c]ounsel does not perform deficiently by fail 2024“A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” Id. ¶15 To prove prejudice, the defendant must show “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the 9 McMath also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a Shiffra/Green motion, but as we explained, those cases were overruled, and “[c]ounsel does not perform deficiently by fail | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. MacHner
green
2 sentences2023The court ultimately denied Green’s motion for a new trial in an oral ruling and later by written order.7 Green appeals. 6 State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 7 The circuit court granted Green’s request for resentencing, which is not before us in this appeal. 5 No. 2022AP151-CR DISCUSSION ¶11 On appeal, Green renews the majority of the claims contained in his postconviction motion. 2023The court ultimately denied Green’s motion for a new trial in an oral ruling and later by written order.7 Green appeals. 6 State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 7 The circuit court granted Green’s request for resentencing, which is not before us in this appeal. 5 No. 2022AP151-CR DISCUSSION ¶11 On appeal, Green renews the majority of the claims contained in his postconviction motion. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Alan S. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023Id., ¶3; State v. Johnson, 2020 WI App 73, ¶26 , 394 Wis. 2d 807 , 951 N.W.2d 616 . 2023Id., ¶3; State v. Johnson, 2020 WI App 73, ¶26 , 394 Wis. 2d 807 , 951 N.W.2d 616 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Nielsen
green
2 sentences2021Green raised this issue for the first time in his postconviction motion. ¶14 Second, even if Green’s challenge is not forfeited, Green has failed to establish that Juror 17 was subjectively biased.4 “The United States and Wisconsin Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury.” State v. Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, ¶24 , 247 Wis. 2d 466 , 634 N.W.2d 325 ; see also WIS. 2021Green raised this issue for the first time in his postconviction motion. ¶14 Second, even if Green’s challenge is not forfeited, Green has failed to establish that Juror 17 was subjectively biased.4 “The United States and Wisconsin Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury.” State v. Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, ¶24 , 247 Wis. 2d 466 , 634 N.W.2d 325 ; see also WIS. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.
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.