Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Edward J. Zimbal

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 14, 2017No. 2015AP001293-CRPublished

1Concurrence

¶ 54.

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J.

0concurring). Although I would reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand for the assignment of a different circuit court judge to preside at Zimbal's trials, I respectfully concur in, but do not join, the majority opinion. The majority opinion's standard, which cases have described as "relaxing]" the rule of strict compliance with Wis. Stat. § 971.20(7),1 is too amorphous to provide guidance in future cases where a circuit court's interaction with an unrepresented defendant contributes to temporal problems with statutory compliance.

*668¶ 55.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. BangertWisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State Ex Rel. Nichols v. LitscherWisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State Ex Rel. Griffin v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State Ex Rel. Steldt v. McCaughtryCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2000
  5. Baldwin v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974

3 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