8 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1934–2024 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. Garciagreen2 sentences1998Alford plea as "a guilty plea in which the defendant pleads guilty while either maintaining his [or her] innocence or not admitting having committed the crime." State v. Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d 845, 856 , 532 N.W.2d 111, 115 (1995). 1998Alford plea as "a guilty plea in which the defendant pleads guilty while either maintaining his [or her] innocence or not admitting having committed the crime." State v. Garcia, 192 Wis. 2d 845, 856 , 532 N.W.2d 111, 115 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCoy v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence2024Hogenson also raised the Sixth Amendment argument that trial counsel had conceded that he was not innocent contrary to McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018). 5 No. 2023AP636-CR ¶15 The circuit court held an initial Machner hearing at which Hogenson’s trial counsel testified. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
S.Y. v. Eau Claire County
green
2 sentences2020I.R.T. indicates that all the witnesses at the hearing testified to facts that they had no personal knowledge of; specifically, they described the events that led to I.R.T.’s initial commitment, and Weber 5 No. 2020AP996-FT testified about information from I.R.T.’s parents regarding his condition in 2019.3 According to I.R.T., pursuant to S.Y. v. Eau Claire County, 156 Wis. 2d 317 , 457 N.W. 2d 326 (Ct App. 1990), “an examining doctor is permitted to rely on inadmissible hearsay in forming his opinion, but the underlying hearsay is still inadmissible.” We disagree that the circuit court relied 2020I.R.T. indicates that all the witnesses at the hearing testified to facts that they had no personal knowledge of; specifically, they described the events that led to I.R.T.’s initial commitment, and Weber 5 No. 2020AP996-FT testified about information from I.R.T.’s parents regarding his condition in 2019.3 According to I.R.T., pursuant to S.Y. v. Eau Claire County, 156 Wis. 2d 317 , 457 N.W. 2d 326 (Ct App. 1990), “an examining doctor is permitted to rely on inadmissible hearsay in forming his opinion, but the underlying hearsay is still inadmissible.” We disagree that the circuit court relied | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2004Until very recently, we would be obliged at this point to assess Manuel's right to be confronted with the State's witnesses under the framework and standards established in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980). *160 The Wisconsin Supreme Court has explained that Roberts established a two-step analysis: The United States Supreme Court has established a two-step approach for analyzing the admission of hearsay evidence under the confrontation clause. 2004Roberts, 448 U.S. at 65-66 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Hatch
neutral
1 sentence1993Hatch, 144 Wis. 2d at 831 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Hampton v. State
green
1 sentence1984Hampton, supra, at 463-64 , 285 N.W.2d at 874-75 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Fricke
green
2 sentences1969Furthermore, the defendant himself was available to defense counsel. *775 “The purpose of the hearing is to determine volun-tariness and it is not to be converted to an adverse pretrial discovery hearing.” Miller, supra, at 465. (5) In State v. Fricke (1934), 215 Wis. 661, 667 , 255 N. W. 724 , this court stated: “Occasionally when such grave doubts exist in our minds regarding the guilt of a defendant as to make us conscientiously believe that justice probably has miscarried, we exercise the authority specifically given to us by sec. 251.09, Stats., and reverse the judgment for a new trial.” 1969Furthermore, the defendant himself was available to defense counsel. *775 “The purpose of the hearing is to determine volun-tariness and it is not to be converted to an adverse pretrial discovery hearing.” Miller, supra, at 465. (5) In State v. Fricke (1934), 215 Wis. 661, 667 , 255 N. W. 724 , this court stated: “Occasionally when such grave doubts exist in our minds regarding the guilt of a defendant as to make us conscientiously believe that justice probably has miscarried, we exercise the authority specifically given to us by sec. 251.09, Stats., and reverse the judgment for a new trial.” | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Benaway v. Conyne
neutral
1 sentence1934Be naway v. Conyne, 3 Pin. 196 (1851). | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.