If the legislature unambiguously has enacted 2 distinct prohibitions, each requiring proof of an element the other does not, the Blockburger presumption of intent to allow multiple punishment applies. But when the statue is language is ambiguous, the rule of lenity applies, requiring resolving the ambiguity against allowing multiple punishment. State v. Church, 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998).
An ultimate issue of fact that has been necessarily litigated cannot be relitigated although the judgment may have been influenced by the defendant's untruthful testimony. That a perjury trial would decide whether the defendant lied about the ultimate fact, rather than deciding the ultimate fact itself, is a distinction without a difference, as proving the lie would require proving the fact itself. State v. Canon, 230 Wis. 2d 512, 602 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1999).
The prohibition against double jeopardy does not prevent convictions for both attempt and conspiracy. to commit the same offense. State v. Moffett, 2000 WI App 67, 233 Wis. 2d 628, 608 N.W.2d 733.
When the judge dismissed a charge after the jury returned a guilty verdict, the prosecution's appeal did not constitute double jeopardy. United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332.
Where a juvenile court found the defendant guilty but unfit for treatment as a juvenile, the defendant would be put in double jeopardy if tried in a criminal court. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519.
A guilty plea does not waive the defense of double jeopardy. Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61.
Where defense counsel's improper opening statement prompted the trial judge to grant a mistrial over defense objections, and where the record provided sufficient justification for the mistrial ruling, the judge's failure to make explicit findings of "manifest necessity" did not support the defendant's claim of double jeopardy. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978).
The protection against double jeopardy did not bar federal prosecution of an American Indian previously convicted in a tribal court of a lesser included offense arising out of the same incident. United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978).
The double jeopardy clause bars a second trial after reversal of a conviction for insufficiency of evidence, as distinguished from reversal for trial error. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978).
There is no exception permitting a retrial once defendant has been acquitted, no matter how egregiously erroneous. Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978).
The test for determining whether 2 offenses are the same for purposes of barring successive prosecutions is discussed. Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 (1980).
A statute authorizing the government to appeal a sentence did not violate the double jeopardy clause. United States v. Di Franceseo, 449 U.S. 117 (1980).
Where the judge granted the defendant's motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict, the double jeopardy clause barred a second trial. Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40 (1981).
A criminal defendant who successfully moves for a mistrial may invoke the double jeopardy clause to bar a retrial only if the mistrial was based on prosecutorial or judicial conduct intended to provoke the defendant into moving for the mistrial. Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982).
Reversal based on the weight of the evidence, unlike reversal based on insufficient evidence, does not preclude retrial. Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982).
The defendant's conviction and sentence by Missouri for both armed criminal action and first-degree robbery in single trial did not constitute double jeopardy. Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983).
The double jeopardy clause did not bar prosecution on more serious charges after the defendant pled guilty to lesser included offenses. Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984).
Where the jury acquitted on one count but was unable to agree on 2 others, the double jeopardy clause did not bar retrial on the remaining 2 counts. Richardson v. U.S. 468 U.S. 317 (1984).
Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, successive prosecutions by 2 states for the same conduct does not constitute double jeopardy. Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985).
An appellate court remedied a double jeopardy violation by reducing a jeopardy-barred conviction to that of lesser included offense that wasn't jeopardy-barred. Morris v. Mathews, 475 U.S. 237 (1986).
Where the defendant breaches a plea agreement and a 2nd degree murder conviction is vacated as a result, a subsequent prosecution for 1st degree murder does not constitute double jeopardy. Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987).
The double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after the reversal of a conviction based upon improperly admitted evidence which, once suppressed, would result in evidence insufficient to support the conviction. Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 102 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1988).
The double jeopardy clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of the offense charged, the prosecution will prove conduct constituting the offense for which the defendant was previously prosecuted. Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1990).
The Grady v. Corbin "same conduct" test is overruled. United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1993).
Custody in the county jail incidental to conviction added to the maximum term imposed on conviction subjected the petitioner to multiple penalties for one offense in excess of the maximum statutory penalty and in violation of the guarantee against double jeopardy. Taylor v. Gray, 375 F. Supp. 790.
Double jeopardy was not violated where the defendant was convicted of separate offenses under s. 161.41 [now 961.41] f\or simultaneous delivery of different controlled substances. Leonard v. Warden, Dodge Correctional Inst. 631 F. Supp. 1403 (1986).
Multiple Punishment in Wisconsin and the Wolske Decision: Is It Desirable to Permit Two Homicide Convictions for Causing a Single Death? 1990 WLR 553.
State v. Grayson: Clouding the Already Murky Waters of Unit Prosecution Analysis in Wisconsin. Leslie. 1993 WLR 811.
DUE PROCESS
It is not necessary to hold a 2nd Goodchild type hearing before admitting testimony of a 2nd witness to the same confession. State v. Watson, 46 Wis. 2d 492, 175 N.W.2d 244.
The sentencing duties of a trial court following a 2nd conviction after retrial or upon resentencing bars the trial court from imposing an increased sentence unless events occur or come to the sentencing court's attention subsequent to the first imposition of sentence which warrant an increased penalty and the court affirmatively states the ground for increasing the sentence on the record. Denny v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 541, 178 N.W.2d 38.
An arrest is not void because of a 3 month interval between the time of the offense and the arrest. Gonzales v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 548, 177 N.W.2d 843.
A lineup, wherein 2 suspects were required to wear special clothing and where a number of victims were allowed to identify them out loud, thus influencing others, was unfair and later influenced in-court identification. Jones v. State, 47 Wis. 2d 642, 178 N.W.2d 42.
An out of court identification by a witness shown only a photograph of the defendant and no other persons was not a denial of due process, but does reflect on the weight given the evidence. Defense counsel need not be present at the identification. Kain v. State, 48 Wis. 2d 212, 179 N.W.2d 777.
The rule that a defendant during a trial should not be handcuffed does not extend to periods outside the courtroom and the fact that some jurors saw the defendant shackled is not prejudicial. State v. Cassel, 48 Wis. 2d 619, 180 N.W.2d 607.
It is not a violation of due process for the judge who conducts a hearing as to the admissibility of a confession to continue as the trial judge in the case. State v. Cleveland, 50 Wis. 2d 666, 184 N.W.2d 899.
A statute denying probation to 2nd offenders and which does not require proof of criminal intent is constitutional. State v. Morales, 51 Wis. 2d 650, 187 N.W.2d 841.
Where a defendant is no longer entitled to a substitution of judge, prejudice in fact by the judge must be shown. State v. Garner, 54 Wis. 2d 100, 194 N.W.2d 649.
A child committed to the department and who is released under supervision, who then violates the terms of the release is entitled to the same protections as an adult as to a hearing on probation revocation. State ex rel. Bernal v. Hershman, 54 Wis. 2d 626, 196 N.W.2d 721.
Where a defendant, believing he was seriously wounded, began to tell what happened and was then given the Miranda warnings his further continuation amounted to a waiver of his rights. He need not expressly state that he was waiving them, where the record shows he was conscious and alert and said he understood his rights. State v. Parker, 55 Wis. 2d 131, 197 N.W.2d 742.
The duty of the state to disclose exculpatory evidence is not excused by the district attorney's belief that the evidence is incredible, but failure to disclose is not prejudicial error where the evidence would not have affected the conviction. Nelson v. State, 59 Wis. 2d 474, 208 N.W.2d 410.
Due process requires that a juvenile be afforded a copy of a hearing examiner's report recommending revocation of after care supervision and the opportunity to object thereto in writing prior to the decision of the H & S S department secretary. State ex rel. R. R. v. Schmidt, 63 Wis. 2d 82, 216 N.W.2d 18.
Circumstances to be considered in determining whether the delay between the alleged commission of a crime and an arrest denies a defendant due process of law include: (1) The period of the applicable statute of limitations; (2) prejudice to the conduct of the defense; (3) intentional prosecution delay to gain some tactical advantage; and (4) the loss of evidence or witnesses, and the dimming of memories. The mere possibility of prejudice from these factors is not alone sufficient to demonstrate that a fair trial is impossible—actual prejudice must be shown. State v. Rogers, 70 Wis. 2d 160, 233 N.W.2d 480.
A photo identification using one color and 4 black and white photos where 2of the 5, including the the color photo, were of the defendant was not impermissibly suggestive. Mentek v. State, 71 Wis. 2d 799, 238 N.W.2d 752.
The fact that the accused who demanded a jury trial received a substantially greater sentence than an accomplice who pleaded guilty does not constitute punishment for exercising the right to a jury trial or a denial of either due process or equal protection. Drinkwater v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 674, 245 N.W.2d 664.
Persons committed under ch. 975 are entitled to periodic review hearings which afford the same minimal requirements of due process as in parole determinations. Habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy. State ex rel. Terry v. Schubert, 74 Wis. 2d 487, 247 N.W.2d 109.
A sentencing judge does not deny due process by considering pending criminal charges in determining a sentence. Handel v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 699, 247 N.W.2d 711.
Due process requires that a prosecutor voluntarily disclose highly exculpatory evidence which would raise a reasonable doubt where none existed before. Ruiz v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 230, 249 N.W.2d 277.
The trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial where police reports concerning an unrelated pending charge against the defendant and the defendant's mental history were accidentally sent to the jury room. Johnson v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 344, 249 N.W.2d 593.
The defendant received a fair, though not perfect, trial where a prosecution witness attempted to ingratiate himself with the jury prior to trial and another prosecution witness violated a sequestration order. Nyberg v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 400, 249 N.W.2d 524.
The defendant's refusal to name accomplices was properly considered by the sentencing judge. Because the defendant had pleaded guilty to a crime, self-incrimination would not have resulted from the requested cooperation. Holmes v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 259, 251 N.W.2d 56.
A parole revocation hearing is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights, including Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rule, are not applicable. State ex rel. Struzik v. DHSS, 77 Wis. 2d 216, 252 N.W.2d 660.
Due process does not require that a person know with certainty which crime, among several, the person is committing, at least until the prosecution exercises its charging discretion. Harris v. State, 78 Wis. 2d 357, 254 N.W.2d 291.
The due process rationale of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 is limited to prosecutorial use of a defendants' custodial interrogation silence to impeach exculpatory statements made during trial. Rudolph v. State, 78 Wis. 2d 435, 254 N.W.2d 471.
Due process does not require that a John Doe witness be advised of the nature of the proceeding or that the witness is a "target" of the investigation. Ryan v. State, 79 Wis. 2d 83, 255 N.W.2d 910.
The due process requirements where an administrative body imposes regulatory or remedial sanctions upon conduct that is also subject to criminal punishment are discussed. Layton School of Art & Design v. WERC, 82 Wis. 2d 324, 262 N.W.2d 218.
The right to a fair trial does not entitle the defendant to inspect the entire file of the prosecutor. Matter of State ex rel. Lynch v. County Ct. 82 Wis. 2d 454, 262 N.W.2d 773.
Under the "totality of circumstances" test, lineup and in-court identifications were properly admitted, although an earlier photographic identification was unnecessarily suggestive. Simos v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 251, 265 N.W.2d 278 (1978).
A deliberate failure to object to prejudicial evidence at trial constitutes a binding waiver. Murray v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 621, 266 N.W.2d 288 (1978).
The test to determine if the denial of a continuance acted to deny the defendant of either due process or the effective right of counsel is discussed. State v. Wollman, 86 Wis. 2d 459, 273 N.W.2d 225 (1979).
The accused has the right to answer some questions after a Miranda warning and then to reassert privilege and break off all questioning. Odell v. State, 90 Wis. 2d 149, 279 N.W.2d 706 (1979).
Trial courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to convict defendants under unconstitutionally vague statutes. The right to raise an issue on appeal cannot be waived, regardless of a guilty plea. State ex rel. Skinkis v. Treffert, 90 Wis. 2d 528, 280 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1979).
A probationer's due process right to prompt revocation proceedings was not triggered where the probationer was detained as the result of an unrelated criminal proceedings. State ex rel. Alvarez v. Lotter, 91 Wis. 2d 329, 283 N.W.2d 408 (Ct. App. 1979).
Before "totality of circumstances" analysis is applied to confrontation identification, it must first be determined whether police deliberately contrived confrontation between witness and defendant. State v. Marshall, 92 Wis. 2d 101, 284 N.W.2d 592 (1979).
Due process requires that evidence reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Stawicki, 93 Wis. 2d 63, 286 N.W.2d 612 (Ct. App. 1979).
An 8 month delay between the date of the alleged offense and the filing of a complaint did not violate the defendant's due process rights. State v. Davis, 95 Wis. 2d 55, 288 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1980).
Exculpatory hearsay lacked assurances of trustworthiness and was properly excluded. State v. Brown, 96 Wis. 2d 238, 291 N.W.2d 528 (1980).
The use of an unsworn prior inconsistent statement of a witness as substantive evidence did not deprive the defendant of due process. Vogel v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 372, 291 N.W.2d 838 (1980).
An inmate in administrative confinement has a state-created interest protected by due process in his eventual return to general prison population. State ex rel. Irby v. Israel, 100 Wis. 2d 411, 302 N.W.2d 517 (Ct. App. 1981).
Factors which the court should consider when the defendant requests to be tried after the trial of a codefendant in order to secure testimony of the codefendant are discussed. State v. Anastas, 107 Wis. 2d 270, 320 N.W.2d 15 (Ct. App. 1982).
A revocation of probation denied due process where there was a lack of notice of the total extent and nature of the alleged violations of probation. State ex rel. Thompson v. Riveland, 109 Wis. 2d 580, 326 N.W.2d 768 (1982).
Continued questioning after the accused mentioned the word "attorney" was prejudicial error. Harmless error analysis is discussed. State v. Billings, 110 Wis. 2d 661, 329 N.W.2d 192 (1983).
Due process requires the state to preserve evidence that (1) possesses exculpatory value apparent to the custodian and (2) is of a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. State v. Oinas, 125 Wis. 2d 487, 373 N.W.2d 463 (Ct. App. 1985).
Where 2 statutes have identical criminal elements but different penalties, the state does not deny equal protection or due process by charging defendants with the more serious crime. State v. Cissel, 127 Wis. 2d 205, 378 N.W.2d 691 (1985).
If the state shows that delay in charging an offense committed by an adult defendant while still a juvenile was not with a manipulative intent, due process does not require dismissal. State v. Montgomery, 148 Wis. 2d 593, 436 N.W.2d 303 (1989).
Lineup and in-court identifications of a defendant may be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest under appropriate circumstances. State v. Walker, 154 Wis. 2d 158, 453 N.W.2d 127 (1990).
A comment during closing argument on the defendant's courtroom demeanor where evidence of the demeanor was adduced during trial did not violate the 5th amendment. State v. Norwood, 161 Wis. 2d 676, 468 N.W.2d 741 (Ct. App. 1991).
Evidence favorable to the defendant must be disclosed if there is a "reasonable probability" that disclosure would have resulted in a different trial outcome. State v. Garrity, 161 Wis. 2d 842, 469 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1991).
Where prior convictions are used to enhance a minimum penalty, collateral attack of the prior convictions must be allowed. State v. Baker, 165 Wis. 2d 42, 477 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1991).
The defense of outrageous governmental conduct may arise where the government violates a specific constitutional right and was itself so enmeshed in the criminal activity that prosecution of the defendant would be repugnant to the criminal justice system. State v. Hyndman, 170 Wis. 2d 198, 488 N.W.2d 111 (Ct. App. 1992).
Where the argument of the defense invited and provoked an otherwise improper remark by the prosecutor, the question is whether, taken in context, the "invited remark" unfairly prejudiced the defendant. State v. Wolff, 171 Wis. 2d 161, 491 N.W.2d 498 (Ct. App. 1992).
Due process is not violated when a burden of production is placed on the defendant to come forward with some evidence of a negative defense. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).
To sustain a conviction when alternative methods of proof resting upon different evidentiary facts are presented to the jury, the evidence must be sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt upon both of the alternative modes of proof. State v. Chambers, 173 Wis. 2d 237, 496 N.W.2d 191 (Ct. App. 1992).
Due process rights of a probationer at a hearing to modify probation are discussed. State v. Hayes, 173 Wis. 2d 439, 496 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1992).
The interval between an arrest and an initial appearance is never unreasonable where the arrested suspect is already in the lawful physical custody of the state. State v. Harris, 174 Wis. 2d 367, 497 N.W.2d 742 (Ct. App. 1993).
The admissibility of an out-of-court identification rests on whether the procedure was impermissibly suggestive and whether under all the circumstances the identification was reliable despite any suggestiveness. That another procedure might have been better does not render the identification inadmissible. State v. Ledger, 175 Wis. 2d 116, 499 N.W.2d 199 (Ct. App. 1993).
A defendant has a fundamental right to testify in his or her own behalf. Waiver of the right must be supported by a record of a knowing and voluntary waiver. State v. Wilson, 179 Wis. 2d 660, 508 N.W.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1993).
The good or bad faith of police in destroying apparently exculpatory evidence is irrelevant, but in the absence of bad faith, destruction of evidence which only provides an avenue of investigation does not violate due process protections. State v. Greenwold, 181 Wis. 2d 881, 512 N.W.2d 237 (Ct. App. 1994).
Bad faith can only be shown if the officers were aware of the potentially exculpatory value of evidence they fail to preserve and the officers acted with animus or made a conscious effort to suppress the evidence. State v. Greenwold, 189 Wis. 2d 59, 525 N.W.2d 294 (Ct. App. 1994).
