Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1901–2024 1 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. Younggreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou 2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wardgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou | 1 | 1 |
Schilling v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou 2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2024State v. Lee, 175 Wis. 2d 348, 360-61 , 499 N.W.2d 250 (Ct. App. 1993) (when the State has made a prima facie showing that a defendant’s Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent, the defendant’s statements should be admitted unless “countervailing evidence” shows that the defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive their Miranda rights). 11 No. 2023AP84-CR NAJEE HUDSON: I just want -- I want someone to know what’s going on right now. 2024State v. Lee, 175 Wis. 2d 348, 360-61 , 499 N.W.2d 250 (Ct. App. 1993) (when the State has made a prima facie showing that a defendant’s Miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent, the defendant’s statements should be admitted unless “countervailing evidence” shows that the defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive their Miranda rights). 11 No. 2023AP84-CR NAJEE HUDSON: I just want -- I want someone to know what’s going on right now. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Geraldsongreen2 sentences1995See Geraldson, 176 Wis. 2d at 488-91 , 500 N.W.2d at 416-17 . 1995See Geraldson, 176 Wis. 2d at 488-91 , 500 N.W.2d at 416-17 . | 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. Beaver
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou 2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Reynolds
neutral
2 sentences2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou 2024See, e.g., Ward, 318 Wis. 2d 301, ¶31 (Ward was given the Miranda warnings, acknowledged that she understood each of those warnings, and recited those warnings back to the officer unprompted); Mitchell, 18 No. 2023AP84-CR 167 Wis. 2d at 679-80, 697 (Mitchell was twice warned of his Miranda rights and he indicated both verbally and in writing that he understood those rights); Schilling v. State, 86 Wis. 2d 69, 77, 87 , 271 N.W.2d 631 (1978) (“[Schilling] was repeatedly advised of his right to counsel, his right to counsel during questioning, his right to remain silent, and that what he said cou | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Colorado v. Spring
green
1 sentence2024Hudson argues that he did not understand that, by waiving his rights and speaking to Pataska, the State could use his statements against him to secure a criminal conviction. ¶21 For the following reasons, we conclude that the State did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case that Hudson understood this consequence of waiving his rights.7 Although the discussion began with Pataska properly reading Hudson his Miranda rights and concluded with Hudson signing both sections of the form, the balance of the discussion consisted of Hudson’s expressions of confusion about th | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Liles v. Employers Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2004Insurance, 126 Wis. 2d 492, 498 , 377 N.W.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1985), noting, "we hesitate to [apply the "no case" rule] except in the most extreme cases." Given the severe consequences of the rule, we too believe that it should be reserved for the most extreme cases. ¶ 27. 2004Insurance, 126 Wis. 2d 492, 498 , 377 N.W.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1985), noting, "we hesitate to [apply the "no case" rule] except in the most extreme cases." Given the severe consequences of the rule, we too believe that it should be reserved for the most extreme cases. ¶ 27. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Keller v. State
green
1 sentence2002The court held that when considering forfeiture of the right to counsel, all "inquiries into the nature and intent of those actions and conduct must be pursued prior to imposing upon the defendant with the consequences of waiver." Id. at 509 . ¶ 20. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Erickson
green
2 sentences2001In criminal cases, however, the normal procedure is to address the consequences of the rule "within the rubric of the ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 766 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999). 2001In criminal cases, however, the normal procedure is to address the consequences of the rule "within the rubric of the ineffective assistance of counsel." State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758, 766 , 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Muente
green
2 sentences2001State v. Muente, 159 Wis. 2d 279, 281-82 , 464 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1990); see also § 340.01(46m)(a). 2001State v. Muente, 159 Wis. 2d 279, 281-82 , 464 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1990); see also § 340.01(46m)(a). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Anderson v. Tri-State Home Improvement Co.
green
2 sentences1956Anderson v. Tri-State Home Improvement Co. (1955), 268 Wis. 455 , 67 N. W. (2d) 853 , 68 N. W. (2d) 705 . *68 The consequences of a violation of sec. 218.01 (7a) (a), Stats., are defined therein. 1956Anderson v. Tri-State Home Improvement Co. (1955), 268 Wis. 455 , 67 N. W. (2d) 853 , 68 N. W. (2d) 705 . *68 The consequences of a violation of sec. 218.01 (7a) (a), Stats., are defined therein. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Carroll v. State
green
2 sentences1942Carroll v. State, 63 Md. 551 , 3 Atl. 29 . 1942Carroll v. State, 63 Md. 551 , 3 Atl. 29 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Sherman v. Menominee River Lumber Co.
green
1 sentence1901Co. 77 Wis. 14 , 45 N. W. 107 9, and the cases hereinbefore cited following it. | 1 | 1901–1901 |
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.