No. 19-8865

Alexander M. Schultz v. Wisconsin

Lower Court: Wisconsin
Docketed: 2020-06-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: burden-of-proof charging-documents double-jeopardy imprecise-language same-offense successive-prosecutions
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment DueProcess FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

For purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, what is the proper test, and assignment of burdens, for determining whether two prosecutions are factually identical when the State uses imprecise language in the charging documents of the first prosecution?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

question presented is: For purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, what is the proper test, and assignment of burdens, for determining whether two prosecutions are factually identical when the State uses imprecise language in the charging documents of the first prosecution? i

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-04
Reply of petitioner Alexander M. Schultz filed.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceCertificate of Word Count
2020-07-27
Brief of respondent Scott E. Rosenow in opposition filed.
Main DocumentCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceOther
2020-06-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 30, 2020)
PetitionMotion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisProof of ServiceAppendix

Attorneys

Alexander M. Schultz
Frederick Alan Bechtold — Frederick A. Bechtold, Attorney at Law, LLC, Petitioner
Scott E. Rosenow
Scott Edwin Rosenow — Wisconsin Department of Justice, Respondent