163 Wis. 2d 652 - State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

cited by 9 later decisions

cited 2 times by the Supreme Court

states following

November 2012

most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe · 152 Wis. 2d 113 - State v. McManus · 119 Wis. 2d 664 - State v. Wittrock · 74 Wis. 2d 705 - State v. Courtney · 139 Wis. 2d 397 - Bachowski v. Salamone

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“Assuming that 'intentionally selects' means to purposely pick out, Mitchell apparently argues that the term is still ambiguous as applied. If we understand Mitchell's argument correctly, the underlying rationale for Mitchell's attention to the term 'intentionally selects' is this: Any time an accused is a different race than the alleged victim, it can be viewed as a 'hate crime' suitable for use of the penalty enhancer since there is no way to discern whether the victim was picked out because of race or because of other reasons. Under the statute, the very fact that this particular victim was picked out indicates that the victim was 'intentionally selected.' Therefore, Mitchell argues that so long as the accused 'knows' the victim is of a different race, a different color or a different religion, the accused will be subject to the statute. This, he claims, allows its use by prosecutors and police without ány guidelines. State v. Mitchell, 163 Wis. 2d 652, 661-62 , 473 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1991).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 169 Wis. 2d 153 - State v. Mitchell
“The statute is directed at the action of selecting a victim and not at speech. [The statute] does not impede or punish the right of persons to express themselves regarding race or any other status or group listed. Words, or even beliefs, are not punished here. What is punished is conduct. The words used by a defendant are merely circumstantial evidence that the defendant specially selected the victim because of race or for other reasons listed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. State v. Hemmingway
“[i]ntentionally selects the person against whom the crime . . . is committed . . . because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Wisconsin v. Mitchell

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.