Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Henley

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 2010No. 2008AP697-CRPublished

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

  1. Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. United States v. HavensSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. State v. Escalona-NaranjoWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Aicher Ex Rel. LaBarge v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation FundWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Eberhardy v. Circuit Court for Wood CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981

32 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