Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1691 - 1700 of 58458 for speedy trial.
Search results 1691 - 1700 of 58458 for speedy trial.
[PDF]
State v. Michael L. Anderson
. § 948.06(1) (1999-2000). 1 The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously exercised
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4599 - 2017-09-19
. § 948.06(1) (1999-2000). 1 The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously exercised
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=4599 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
WI App 145
by the trial court and by actions of Milwaukee County jail personnel. Because we conclude that Rhodes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72010 - 2014-09-15
by the trial court and by actions of Milwaukee County jail personnel. Because we conclude that Rhodes
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=72010 - 2014-09-15
WI App 145 court of appeals of wisconsin published opinion Case No.: 2010AP435-CR Complete Title...
that he was denied his right to counsel by the trial court and by actions of Milwaukee County jail
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72010 - 2011-11-28
that he was denied his right to counsel by the trial court and by actions of Milwaukee County jail
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=72010 - 2011-11-28
Honore Ann Harvey v. Stephen Gavin Osmanski
to post-divorce proceedings. Osmanski claims the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2230 - 2005-03-31
to post-divorce proceedings. Osmanski claims the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2230 - 2005-03-31
State v. Vincent E. Smith
, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.225(3), 939.63(1)(a)3, 948.30(1)(b) and 946.70(1),[1] and from the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2571 - 2005-03-31
, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.225(3), 939.63(1)(a)3, 948.30(1)(b) and 946.70(1),[1] and from the trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2571 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
County of Bayfield v. Andrew J. Peterson
are: (1) whether the trial court erred at Peterson's initial appearance when it failed to inform Peterson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9962 - 2017-09-19
are: (1) whether the trial court erred at Peterson's initial appearance when it failed to inform Peterson
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=9962 - 2017-09-19
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
is entitled to a new trial because: (1) due to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=89960 - 2014-09-15
is entitled to a new trial because: (1) due to the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, his
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=89960 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
for postconviction relief.[1] Gardner argues that he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) due to the ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=89960 - 2012-12-04
for postconviction relief.[1] Gardner argues that he is entitled to a new trial because: (1) due to the ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=89960 - 2012-12-04
[PDF]
State v. Jose S. Soto, Sr.
, all as party to a crime.1 He also appeals from an order denying his petition for a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7176 - 2017-09-20
, all as party to a crime.1 He also appeals from an order denying his petition for a new trial
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=7176 - 2017-09-20
State v. Jose S. Soto, Sr.
denying his petition for a new trial and postconviction discovery motion. He argues he is entitled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7176 - 2005-03-31
denying his petition for a new trial and postconviction discovery motion. He argues he is entitled
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=7176 - 2005-03-31