Legal Opinion

State v. Peterson

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1928PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.

The state does not challenge the fact,that it is the established rule in this state that the participation in the trial of a criminal case in court by an attorney paid by private parties is error sufficient to vitiate the conviction. But it is claimed by the state that the assistance given in the trial of this case was not such as to come within the *353established rule. That at most all that Mr. Grubb, the private attorney, did was to sit at the district attorney’s table while the jury was being drawn, and that afterwards he refrained from coming into the court room though he remained in Prairie…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Bolens v. FrearWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
  2. State v. RussellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Biemel v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Rock v. EkernWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Smith v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State Ex Rel. Kurkierewicz v. CannonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. State v. CulbreathTennessee Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State v. KenyonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  5. County of Kenosha v. C & S MANAGEMENT, INC.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1999

30 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