Legal Opinion

State v. Demone Alexander

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 12, 2013No. 2011AP000394-CRPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMichael J. Gableman, J.

¶ 1. We are asked to determine whether a defendant must be physically present when a judge holds an in-chambers discussion with a juror during the middle of a trial. We recognize that a defendant has a constitutional right to be present at his trial. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987). Whether this right to be present at trial encompasses in-chambers meetings "admits of no categorical 'yes' or 'no' answer. A conference in chambers might well constitute part of the trial depending upon what matters are discussed or passed upon. Likewise, such a conference might not be a part of the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. United States v. Ilario M.A. ZanninoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
  4. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  5. Kentucky v. StincerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. Jeffrey P. LepschWisconsin Supreme Court · 2017
  2. Board of Regents - UW System v. Jeffrey S. DeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Board of Regents - UW System v. Jeffrey S. DeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Grady v. SmithDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2021
  5. Maya Elaine Smith v. Jeff AndersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 2017

7 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