Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Radder

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided May 16, 2018No. Appeal No. 2016AP1954-CRPublished

1Concurrence

REILLY, P.J. (concurring).

¶27 The majority holds that a defendant who has filed a pretrial suppression motion "bears the burden of demonstrating a need for an evidentiary hearing in the first place" and that the defendant must show a "reasonable possibility that a hearing is needed to ... establish the necessary factual basis to succeed on the motion." Majority, ¶15. I concur as given the reasoning in State v. Zamzow , 2017 WI 29, ¶31, 374 Wis. 2d 220, 892 N.W.2d 637, I see no alternative; however, I caution that the Constitution is a restriction rather than a tool of the government, and the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. State v. DyessWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State v. VelezWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State v. Glenn T. ZamzowWisconsin Supreme Court · 2017
  5. State v. ZamzowCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API