Legal Opinion

State v. Messelt

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1994No. 91-2060-CRPublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJon P. Wilcox, J.

This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, State v. Messelt, 178 Wis. 2d 320, 504 N.W.2d 362 (Ct. App. 1993). The defendant, William Messelt (Messelt) argues that he is entitled to a new trial because extraneous, prejudicial information reached one or more jurors prior to the verdict. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Messelt's postconviction motion based largely upon its belief that sec. 906.06(2), Stats.,1 pre*258vents jurors from testifying as to whether extraneous prejudicial information reached the jury unless the information in question was…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Wainwright v. WittSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Turner v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Tanner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. McDonald v. PlessSupreme Court of the United States · 1915

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. People v. OlingerIllinois Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. FlynnCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994
  3. State v. AlexanderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. FaucherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. FerronWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998

26 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