Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. McClaren

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 2009No. 2007AP2382-CRPublished

1DissentAnn Walsh Bradley, J.

¶ 53. (dissenting). There is a name for mandatory pretrial disclosure of information that might be offered as evidence in a criminal proceeding: discovery. Although the majority attempts to label what is at issue in this case as merely the pretrial disclosure of information, I agree with a unanimous court of appeals that the order here "in essence, [is] a discovery device." State v. McClaren, 2008 WI App 118, ¶ 25, 313 Wis. 2d 398, 756 N.W.2d 802.

¶ 54. Our precedent is clear that discovery is governed by the criminal discovery statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.23. Lynch v. County Court, 82 Wis. 2d…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Williams v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Taylor v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Monier v. ChamberlainIllinois Supreme Court · 1966

8 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