Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure — prosecutorial vindictiveness — double jeopardy

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 15, 2011//

Criminal Procedure — prosecutorial vindictiveness — double jeopardy

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 15, 2011//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — prosecutorial vindictiveness — double jeopardy

In this interlocutory appeal, Clayton-Jones seeks dismissal of a sexual assault charge involving a ten-year-old boy filed in 2008.

The charge was filed immediately after sentencing on a sexual assault charge involving the same boy filed in 2006. Clayton-Jones argues that dismissal of the charge is required for two reasons: prosecutorial vindictiveness and a rule prohibiting a future prosecution when conduct is the subject of a “read-in” at sentencing. We reject each argument, affirm the order of the circuit court, and remand for further proceedings. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP2239-CR State v. Clayton-Jones

Dist IV, Sauk County, Taggart, J., Lundsten, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Kohler, Martin E., Milwaukee; Powell, Craig S., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Barrett, Patricia A., Baraboo; Burgundy, Sarah, Madison

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests