State v. Henley
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentN. Patrick Crooks, J.
¶ 104. {dissenting). The majority poses the question, "[C]an convicted criminal defendants still seek a new trial in the interest of justice?" It responds, "The answer is certainly yes."1 Except, as here, when the answer is "certainly not." The majority's decision limits a circuit court's authority to grant a new trial in the interest of justice to those cases where the motion is filed within a 20-day window following sentencing2 — a rule that implies that circuit courts cannot be trusted with the inherent authority to grant and reject such motions and implies as well that the majority can…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. HavensSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- State v. Escalona-NaranjoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
- Aicher Ex Rel. LaBarge v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation FundWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
- Eberhardy v. Circuit Court for Wood CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.