Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. McCallum

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1997No. 95-1518-CRPublished

1Concurrence

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶ 33. (concurring). I agree with the mandate but write separately to elaborate on the two major issues I believe are raised in the present case. The first is the standard of review applied by an appellate court to a circuit court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on recantation testimony. The second is the legal standard a circuit court applies to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome were the fact finder to hear the evidence presented at the *481initial proceeding and to hear the recantation and other new evidence.…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Larrison v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
  3. State v. DyessWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Berry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
  5. State v. PitschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985

19 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