Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Raphfeal Lyfold Myrick

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 2014No. 2012AP002513-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceShirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.

¶ 43. (concurring.) I would read the Wisconsin rule regarding the *850admissibility of defendant statements made in connection with plea bargaining1 the same as the federal rule2 rather than continue to split hairs over the distinction between Wisconsin's "offer" rule and the federal "discussions" rule. In my view, once plea negotiations have started, all statements made in connection with the negotiations should be excluded at trial, even if the negotiations break down.3

¶ 44. Other states with similar textual discrepancies between the federal and state rule have adopted the federal test.4 I…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. LittleSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1987
  2. People v. TannerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  3. State v. LavoieSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API