State v. McCallum
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Larrison v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
- State v. DyessWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
- Berry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
- State v. PitschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.