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.
7 Wisconsin opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Conegreen2 sentences2026For instance, in Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 691-92, 697-98 (2002), the United States Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the Cronic exception applied when the defendant’s attorney failed to introduce any mitigating evidence and entirely waived his closing argument at the defendant’s capital sentencing hearing. 2026For instance, in Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 691-92, 697-98 (2002), the United States Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the Cronic exception applied when the defendant’s attorney failed to introduce any mitigating evidence and entirely waived his closing argument at the defendant’s capital sentencing hearing. | 3 | 3 |
Scott Schmidt v. Brian Fostergreen2 sentences2025A Cronic claim “lies only when there is a ‘complete denial of counsel during a critical stage.’” Schmidt v. Foster, 911 F.3d 469, 480 (7th Cir. 2018).5 Love alleges that counsel’s pretrial preparation and investigation were inadequate, asserting that presence at formal proceedings is not enough. 2025A Cronic claim “lies only when there is a ‘complete denial of counsel during a critical stage.’” Schmidt v. Foster, 911 F.3d 469, 480 (7th Cir. 2018).5 Love alleges that counsel’s pretrial preparation and investigation were inadequate, asserting that presence at formal proceedings is not enough. | 2 | 2 |
Schonscheck v. Paccar, Inc.green2 sentences2025See Schonscheck v. Paccar, Inc., 2003 WI App 79, ¶11 , 261 Wis. 2d 769 , 661 N.W.2d 476 (“A fundamental appellate precept is that we ‘will not ... blindside [circuit] courts with reversals based on theories which did not originate in their forum.’” (citation omitted)); State Farm Mut. 2025Finally, the State cited Schonscheck for “[a] fundamental appellate precept,” Schonscheck, 261 Wis. 2d 769, ¶11 , which is not based on the specific facts of that case and is undeniably applicable here. ¶25 Even if we were to conclude that Alexander had not forfeited his Cronic claim, however, we would not presume prejudice in this case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cronic
green
2 sentences2024When considering whether a defendant has been constructively denied the assistance of counsel, a court must determine whether counsel “failed to function in any meaningful sense as the Government’s adversary.” Id. at 666 . ¶24 In Bell v. Cone, the Court emphasized that the Cronic principle applies only if counsel “entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” Bell, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002) (quoting Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). 2024When considering whether a defendant has been constructively denied the assistance of counsel, a court must determine whether counsel “failed to function in any meaningful sense as the Government’s adversary.” Id. at 666 . ¶24 In Bell v. Cone, the Court emphasized that the Cronic principle applies only if counsel “entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” Bell, 535 U.S. 685, 697 (2002) (quoting Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
McCoy v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2023However, a Cronic claim may also trigger structural error. “[I]f counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, then there has been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights that makes the adversary process itself presumptively unreliable” and “‘no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.’” Id., 466 U.S. at 659 (citation omitted). 10 No. 2021AP1705-CR and reach ‘any other conclusion than Robert McCoy was the cause of these individuals’ death.’” Id. at 1506. 2023However, a Cronic claim may also trigger structural error. “[I]f counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, then there has been a denial of Sixth Amendment rights that makes the adversary process itself presumptively unreliable” and “‘no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.’” Id., 466 U.S. at 659 (citation omitted). 10 No. 2021AP1705-CR and reach ‘any other conclusion than Robert McCoy was the cause of these individuals’ death.’” Id. at 1506. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Joseph Van Patten v. Jodine Deppisch
green
2 sentences2007The Seventh Circuit held that this was insufficient under the Cronic test, Deppisch, 434 F.3d at 1045 , noting that the defendant could not confer privately with the attorney. 2007The Seventh Circuit held that this was insufficient under the Cronic test, Deppisch, 434 F.3d at 1045 , noting that the defendant could not confer privately with the attorney. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.