State v. Seefeldt
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
¶ 1. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy includes a defendant's cherished right to have his or her trial completed by the jury that was sworn. A limited exception to this right is recognized only when the government can demonstrate a manifest necessity for seeking a mistrial. In this case, the trial court granted the State's request for a mistrial on the ground that defense counsel's reference to a witness's outstanding warrants violated a pretrial order prohibiting introduction of "other acts" evidence until the trial court ruled on its admissibility. We assume without…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State v. SullivanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998
- Sweet v. BergeCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
- State v. KuntzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
- Nicholas v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. SeefeldtWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
- City of Pewaukee v. CarterWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. SigarroaCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
- State v. BerryCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2016
- State v. HobbickCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.