6 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Crewsgreen2 sentences1997See Brief for State at 14 n.1. [4] See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 17-18 , 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). [5] See State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 171 , 388 N.W.2d 565 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986) ("The reason for independent appellate review of constitutional facts is [that] `[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.'"). [6] See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 473 n.18 (1980). [7] The court has also applied the 1997See Brief for State at 14 n.1. [4] See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 17-18 , 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). [5] See State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 171 , 388 N.W.2d 565 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986) ("The reason for independent appellate review of constitutional facts is [that] `[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.'"). [6] See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 473 n.18 (1980). [7] The court has also applied the | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2021See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Santiagogreen2 sentences1997See Brief for State at 14 n.1. [4] See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 17-18 , 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). [5] See State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 171 , 388 N.W.2d 565 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986) ("The reason for independent appellate review of constitutional facts is [that] `[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.'"). [6] See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 473 n.18 (1980). [7] The court has also applied the 1997See Brief for State at 14 n.1. [4] See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 17-18 , 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). [5] See State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 171 , 388 N.W.2d 565 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986) ("The reason for independent appellate review of constitutional facts is [that] `[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.'"). [6] See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 473 n.18 (1980). [7] The court has also applied the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harpergreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., State v. Harper, 57 Wis. 2d 543, 546 , 205 N.W.2d 1 (1973). 7 IV. ¶ 28. 1997See, e.g., State v. Harper, 57 Wis. 2d 543, 546 , 205 N.W.2d 1 (1973). 7 IV. ¶ 28. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wadegreen2 sentences1997Although the Wade test is derived from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Court's concern in Wade was similarly that of "mistaken identification" and protecting the accused from pre-trial identification procedures replete with "innumerable dangers." Wade, 388 U.S. at 228 . ¶ 71. 1997Although the Wade test is derived from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Court's concern in Wade was similarly that of "mistaken identification" and protecting the accused from pre-trial identification procedures replete with "innumerable dangers." Wade, 388 U.S. at 228 . ¶ 71. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Frygreen2 sentences1997See Brief for State at 14 n.1. [4] See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 17-18 , 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). [5] See State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 171 , 388 N.W.2d 565 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986) ("The reason for independent appellate review of constitutional facts is [that] `[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.'"). [6] See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 473 n.18 (1980). [7] The court has also applied the 1997See Brief for State at 14 n.1. [4] See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 17-18 , 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). [5] See State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 171 , 388 N.W.2d 565 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986) ("The reason for independent appellate review of constitutional facts is [that] `[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.'"). [6] See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 473 n.18 (1980). [7] The court has also applied the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences1997See State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 188-89 , 453 N.W.2d 127 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 962 (1990). 1997See State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 188-89 , 453 N.W.2d 127 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 962 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1997See State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 188-89 , 453 N.W.2d 127 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 962 (1990). 1997See State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 188-89 , 453 N.W.2d 127 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 962 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Scroggins v. Idahogreen2 sentences1997See Brief for State at 14 n.1. [4] See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 17-18 , 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). [5] See State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 171 , 388 N.W.2d 565 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986) ("The reason for independent appellate review of constitutional facts is [that] `[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.'"). [6] See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 473 n.18 (1980). [7] The court has also applied the 1997See Brief for State at 14 n.1. [4] See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 17-18 , 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). [5] See State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 171 , 388 N.W.2d 565 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986) ("The reason for independent appellate review of constitutional facts is [that] `[t]he scope of constitutional protections, representing the basic value commitments of our society, cannot vary from trial court to trial court, or from jury to jury.'"). [6] See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 241 (1967); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 , 473 n.18 (1980). [7] The court has also applied the | 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. Villarreal
green
2 sentences2019Thus, it is not the Strickland analysis that is applied to Wade's claim; rather, the appropriate test is whether the defendant has shown that "an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." State v. Villarreal , 2013 WI App 33 , ¶8, 346 Wis. 2d 690 , 828 N.W.2d 866 (citation and two sets of quotation marks omitted). 2019Thus, it is not the Strickland analysis that is applied to Wade's claim; rather, the appropriate test is whether the defendant has shown that "an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance." State v. Villarreal , 2013 WI App 33 , ¶8, 346 Wis. 2d 690 , 828 N.W.2d 866 (citation and two sets of quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. McMorris
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 168, 570 N.W.2d 384 (citation omitted). 2006Id. at 168, 570 N.W.2d 384 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Quinn v. State
green
2 sentences1973During his cross-examination he brought out points that would only be known to the defendant, and in some way that matter was given to Mr. Schwartz by the defendant.” This court has held for some time that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of inadequate representation unless counsel’s performance is “so inadequate and of such low competency as to amount to no representation.” Pulaski v. State (1964), 23 Wis. 2d 138, 148 , 126 N. W. 2d 625 ; Quinn v. State (1972), 53 Wis. 2d 821 , 193 N. W. 2d 665 ; Swonger v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 468 , 195 N. W. 2d 598 . 1973During his cross-examination he brought out points that would only be known to the defendant, and in some way that matter was given to Mr. Schwartz by the defendant.” This court has held for some time that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of inadequate representation unless counsel’s performance is “so inadequate and of such low competency as to amount to no representation.” Pulaski v. State (1964), 23 Wis. 2d 138, 148 , 126 N. W. 2d 625 ; Quinn v. State (1972), 53 Wis. 2d 821 , 193 N. W. 2d 665 ; Swonger v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 468 , 195 N. W. 2d 598 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Pulaski v. State
green
2 sentences1973During his cross-examination he brought out points that would only be known to the defendant, and in some way that matter was given to Mr. Schwartz by the defendant.” This court has held for some time that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of inadequate representation unless counsel’s performance is “so inadequate and of such low competency as to amount to no representation.” Pulaski v. State (1964), 23 Wis. 2d 138, 148 , 126 N. W. 2d 625 ; Quinn v. State (1972), 53 Wis. 2d 821 , 193 N. W. 2d 665 ; Swonger v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 468 , 195 N. W. 2d 598 . 1973During his cross-examination he brought out points that would only be known to the defendant, and in some way that matter was given to Mr. Schwartz by the defendant.” This court has held for some time that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of inadequate representation unless counsel’s performance is “so inadequate and of such low competency as to amount to no representation.” Pulaski v. State (1964), 23 Wis. 2d 138, 148 , 126 N. W. 2d 625 ; Quinn v. State (1972), 53 Wis. 2d 821 , 193 N. W. 2d 665 ; Swonger v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 468 , 195 N. W. 2d 598 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Swonger v. State
green
2 sentences1973During his cross-examination he brought out points that would only be known to the defendant, and in some way that matter was given to Mr. Schwartz by the defendant.” This court has held for some time that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of inadequate representation unless counsel’s performance is “so inadequate and of such low competency as to amount to no representation.” Pulaski v. State (1964), 23 Wis. 2d 138, 148 , 126 N. W. 2d 625 ; Quinn v. State (1972), 53 Wis. 2d 821 , 193 N. W. 2d 665 ; Swonger v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 468 , 195 N. W. 2d 598 . 1973During his cross-examination he brought out points that would only be known to the defendant, and in some way that matter was given to Mr. Schwartz by the defendant.” This court has held for some time that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of inadequate representation unless counsel’s performance is “so inadequate and of such low competency as to amount to no representation.” Pulaski v. State (1964), 23 Wis. 2d 138, 148 , 126 N. W. 2d 625 ; Quinn v. State (1972), 53 Wis. 2d 821 , 193 N. W. 2d 665 ; Swonger v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 468 , 195 N. W. 2d 598 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.