Legal Opinion

State v. Jack M. Suriano

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 2017No. 2015AP000959-CRPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRebecca Grassl Bradley, J.

f 1. We review whether Jack Suriano's actions, which caused three attorneys appointed by the State Public Defender to withdraw in rapid succession, constituted forfeiture of his right to counsel, and whether the right-to-counsel warnings and procedure this court recommended in State v. Cummings, 199 Wis. 2d 721, 546 N.W.2d 406 (1996), should be made mandatory. We conclude that Suriano forfeited his constitutional right to counsel by repeatedly refusing to cooperate with his attorneys, constantly complaining about their performance, verbally abusing them, and triggering one lawyer's fear of a…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Jones v. BarnesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Taylor v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. United States v. Gonzalez-LopezSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. Donavinn D. CoffeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2020
  2. State v. Donavinn D. CoffeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 2020
  3. State v. Jack M. SurianoWisconsin Supreme Court · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API