Village of Bayside v. Bruner
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
In general, the appellant contends that conviction for drunken driving, even though charged under a village ordinance, carries with it such opprobrium that the defendant should be entitled to the protection afforded in a criminal trial. Specifically, he contends that the jury should have been instructed that guilt could only be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant could not be called adversely by the village attorney, and that the jury should have been instructed that a unanimous verdict was required rather than the five-sixths verdict used in civil cases.
We need…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- City of Madison v. GeierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- City of Neenah v. AlsteenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- City of Milwaukee v. BurnsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- City of Milwaukee v. WukyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. AlbrightCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1980
- State v. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
- State Ex Rel. Prentice v. County Court of Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- State v. KramsvogelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
- Town of Geneva v. TillsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.