Legal Opinion

State v. Gerard

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 27, 1973No. State 27PublishedCited by 55 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

The defendant first contends that the probation revocation hearing did not comport with due process of law because the trial court denied him the opportunity to cross-examine the opposing witness. We find no error in this respect. The basic requirements of due process of law and fairness require that a factual hearing be held to determine the grounds of revocation. This procedure permits the defendant to be informed of his probation violations, confront his adversary, and to be heard if he so desires. State ex rel. Johnson v. Cady (1971), 50 Wis. 2d 540, 185 N. W. 2d 306, and Hahn v. Burke…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. In Re AntazoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970

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

3Cited by55 opinions

  1. State v. TarrellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Huggett v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  3. In INTEREST OF DH v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State v. O'CONNORWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Moore v. StampsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974

50 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