Legal Opinion

State v. Seefeldt

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided May 22, 2002No. 01-1969-CRPublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. State v. SullivanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Sweet v. BergeCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1983
  4. State v. KuntzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Nicholas v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. SeefeldtWisconsin Supreme Court · 2003
  2. City of Pewaukee v. CarterWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  3. State v. SigarroaCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2003
  4. State v. BerryCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2016
  5. State v. HobbickCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2018

1 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