Michael L. Piaskowski v. John Bett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “A strong suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity is no substitute for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• Double jeopardy bars a retrial because the court’s holding that the evidence was insufficient acted as a “functional equivalent of an acquittal.”
• “under Wisconsin law, a conspirator is responsible for any crime committed as a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime”
• “[I]nferences must be sufficiently strong to avoid a lapse into speculation.”
• “Kellner recanted a key portion of his trial testimony . . . during postconviction proceed- ings, claiming that Kutska did not identify any member of the group that confronted Monfils other than himself, Hirn, and Moore.”
• \[I]nferences must be sufficiently strong to avoid a lapse into speculation.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).