Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Demone Alexander

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 2013No. 2011AP000394-CRPublished

1Concurrence

*349SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.

¶ 34. {concurring). I agree with and join Justice Crooks' concurrence.

¶ 35. I write separately to address the majority opinion's misreading of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 971.04(l)(c), majority op., ¶¶ 5, 19, 38, 40, and to explain that Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 971.04(l)(c) has to be read to give a defendant the right to be present "when the jury is being selected." Here is why.

¶ 36. Wisconsin Stat. § 971.04(l)(c) was created by the legislature.1 When created, Wis. Stat. § 971.04(l)(c) read as follows:

971.04 Defendant to be present. (1) Except as provided in subs. (2) and (3),…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  4. United States v. GagnonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Juan Verdin v. Michael O'Leary and Neil F. HartiganCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API