La Crosse Criminal Lawyer, Wisconsin


Mark R. McCabe

Litigation, Lawsuit & Dispute, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

Craig R. Steger

Litigation, Wills & Probate, Employment, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  16 Years

Keith A. Belzer

Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

Daniel Mark Norland

Criminal, Divorce & Family Law
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  11 Years
Speak with Lawyer.com

Donald J. Harman

Accident & Injury, Criminal, Estate, Lawsuit & Dispute, Medical Malpractice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  62 Years

Nicholas J. Passe

Civil Rights, Trusts, Real Estate, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-620-0900

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Email, Phone, Text Messages, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.


Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-943-8690

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Email, Phone, Text Messages, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.

TIPS

Lawyer.com can help you easily and quickly find La Crosse Criminal Lawyers and La Crosse Criminal Law Firms. Refine your search by specific Criminal practice areas such as DUI-DWI, Felony, Misdemeanor, RICO Act, White Collar Crime and Traffic matters.

LEGAL TERMS

DIRECTED VERDICT

A ruling by a judge, typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the... (more...)
A ruling by a judge, typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the defendant. A directed verdict is usually made because the judge concludes the plaintiff has failed to offer the minimum amount of evidence to prove her case even if there were no opposition. In other words, the judge is saying that, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could decide in the plaintiff's favor. In a criminal case, a directed verdict is a judgement of acquittal for the defendant.

BAILOR

Someone who delivers an item of personal property to another person for a specific purpose. For example, a person who leaves a broken VCR with a repairman in or... (more...)
Someone who delivers an item of personal property to another person for a specific purpose. For example, a person who leaves a broken VCR with a repairman in order to get it fixed would be a bailor.

INFORMED CONSENT

An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available al... (more...)
An agreement to do something or to allow something to happen, made with complete knowledge of all relevant facts, such as the risks involved or any available alternatives. For example, a patient may give informed consent to medical treatment only after the healthcare professional has disclosed all possible risks involved in accepting or rejecting the treatment. A healthcare provider or facility may be held responsible for an injury caused by an undisclosed risk. In another context, a person accused of committing a crime cannot give up his constitutional rights--for example, to remain silent or to talk with an attorney--unless and until he has been informed of those rights, usually via the well-known Miranda warnings.

ACTUS REUS

Latin for a 'guilty act.' The actus reus is the act which, in combination with a certain mental state, such as intent or recklessness, constitutes a crime. For ... (more...)
Latin for a 'guilty act.' The actus reus is the act which, in combination with a certain mental state, such as intent or recklessness, constitutes a crime. For example, the crime of theft requires physically taking something (the actus reus) coupled with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the object (the mental state, or mens rea).

MENS REA

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental s... (more...)
The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced '... (more...)
The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced 'to a moral certainty.' The jury must be convinced that the defendant committed each element of the crime before returning a guilty verdict.

ACCOMPLICE

Someone who helps another person (known as the principal) commit a crime. Unlike an accessory, an accomplice is usually present when the crime is committed. An ... (more...)
Someone who helps another person (known as the principal) commit a crime. Unlike an accessory, an accomplice is usually present when the crime is committed. An accomplice is guilty of the same offense and usually receives the same sentence as the principal. For instance, the driver of the getaway car for a burglary is an accomplice and will be guilty of the burglary even though he may not have entered the building.

IMPRISON

To put a person in prison or jail or otherwise confine him as punishment for committing a crime.

MCNAGHTEN RULE

The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wron... (more...)
The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wrong at the time he committed the crime. For example, a delusional psychotic who believed that his assaultive acts were in response to the will of God would not be criminally responsible for his acts.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

State v. Kramer

... Id. ¶ 11 A primary question the court of appeals addressed was whether evidence of Wagner's subjective belief that criminal activity might be taking place operated to preclude his conduct from coming within the scope of his community caretaker function. Id., ¶ 13. ...

State v. Harris

... I. Did the State violate Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) (the criminal discovery statute) or the ... Stat. § 971.23(1) (the criminal discovery statute) by failing to disclose timely the defendant's request to put on a particular pair of pants? If so, was the defendant prejudiced by the violation? III. ...

State v. Schaefer

... 2 After permitting Schaefer's interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals certified the following question to this court: "Does a criminal defendant have a subpoena right to obtain and copy police investigation reports and nonprivileged materials prior to the preliminary hearing ...