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.
6 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2017 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen2 sentences1985In Interest of T.R.B. at 198 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 (1937)). 1982When a defendant attempts to waive fundamental rights, the trial court has a “serious and weighty responsibility” to determine “whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused” and “it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear on the record.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 (1937). | 2 | 4 |
Rock v. Arkansasgreen1 sentence2005Id. at 205-06 (citations omitted); see also Weed, 263 Wis. 2d 434, ¶ 37 (noting that our courts did not mandate the special protection of a personal on-the-record colloquy for waivers of the right to testify until the United States Supreme Court in Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987), deemed it a fundamental right). 2 ¶ 19. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weedgreen1 sentence2005Id. at 205-06 (citations omitted); see also Weed, 263 Wis. 2d 434, ¶ 37 (noting that our courts did not mandate the special protection of a personal on-the-record colloquy for waivers of the right to testify until the United States Supreme Court in Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987), deemed it a fundamental right). 2 ¶ 19. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pickens v. State
red
2 sentences2017This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. 3 No. 2015AP959.ssa See State v. Pickens, 96 Wis. 2d 549, 601 , 292 N.W.2d 601 (1980). ¶45 Pickens has been "overruled" since Cummings to the extent that "we mandate the use of a colloquy in every case where a defendant seeks to proceed pro se to prove knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel." State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 206 , 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997). ¶46 The Klessig court explained that the circuit court' 2017This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. 3 No. 2015AP959.ssa See State v. Pickens, 96 Wis. 2d 549, 601 , 292 N.W.2d 601 (1980). ¶45 Pickens has been "overruled" since Cummings to the extent that "we mandate the use of a colloquy in every case where a defendant seeks to proceed pro se to prove knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel." State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 206 , 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997). ¶46 The Klessig court explained that the circuit court' | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Klessig
green
2 sentences2017This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. 3 No. 2015AP959.ssa See State v. Pickens, 96 Wis. 2d 549, 601 , 292 N.W.2d 601 (1980). ¶45 Pickens has been "overruled" since Cummings to the extent that "we mandate the use of a colloquy in every case where a defendant seeks to proceed pro se to prove knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel." State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 206 , 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997). ¶46 The Klessig court explained that the circuit court' 2017This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. 3 No. 2015AP959.ssa See State v. Pickens, 96 Wis. 2d 549, 601 , 292 N.W.2d 601 (1980). ¶45 Pickens has been "overruled" since Cummings to the extent that "we mandate the use of a colloquy in every case where a defendant seeks to proceed pro se to prove knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel." State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194, 206 , 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997). ¶46 The Klessig court explained that the circuit court' | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.