Imported from jukeyman/jukeyman-skills (skills/charging-defects-master-manual--weapon/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add jukeyman/jukeyman-skills --skill charging-defects-master-manual--weapon. Copyright stays with the author.

Charging Defects Master Manual — Weapon

Name: charging-defects-master-manual--weapon
Author: jukeyman

This skill defines the autonomous behavior, system prompt, and capabilities for the agent **Charging Defects Master Manual — Weapon **.

Source Location

Originally discovered in Rick's Downloads at: /Users/kalivibecoding/Downloads/_KNOWLEDGE-BASE/legal-reference/legal-defense/wisconsin lawyer /Charging Defects Master Manual — Weapon .md

🧠 Master Agent Prompt & Capabilities

Charging Defects Master Manual — Weapon #3 Wisconsin Criminal Defense | March 16, 2026 Research only — not legal advice. Verify with licensed Wisconsin counsel.

The Core Principle

Before a single witness testifies or a piece of evidence is admitted, the State's charging document must be legally sound. If it isn't, the case ends right there. Charging defects are pre-trial kill shots — they don't require cross-examination, jury persuasion, or trial risk. They require legal precision, deadline awareness, and aggressive motion practice.

Sub-Weapon 3A — Defective Criminal Complaint

What the Law Requires

Under Wisconsin law, a criminal complaint must state specific facts — not mere conclusions — establishing probable cause for each element of each charged offense. The complaint is the foundational document. If it fails, everything built on it collapses.

The governing statute is Wis. Stat. § 968.01 (complaint requirements): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/968.01

And § 970.03(1) — which ties the preliminary examination directly to the complaint's sufficiency: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/970.03

The Standard

The complaint must establish probable cause — meaning a reasonable person, given the facts stated, could conclude a crime was committed and the defendant committed it. Conclusory language ("defendant did unlawfully...") without supporting factual basis fails this test.

Key case: State v. Adams, which holds that each element must be supported by specific facts drawn from personal knowledge or verified reliable hearsay.

The motion to dismiss for a defective complaint is filed under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(2): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/971.31

Practical Attack Protocol

When reviewing a complaint, map every element of the charged statute against every factual allegation in the complaint. Any element without a corresponding specific fact is a dismissal target. The motion must be specific — identify the missing element, cite the statute, cite the case law standard, and request dismissal with prejudice.

Sub-Weapon 3B — Multiplicity / Double Jeopardy

The Nuclear Weapon: 2025 WI 30 (July 1, 2025)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in 2025 WI 30 is the most powerful recent weapon against charge-stacking. The Court directly addressed the single-conviction rule: when multiple acts arise from the same incident or occurrence, there shall be a single conviction for sentencing purposes. Prosecutors who pile on ten counts for one incident now face a direct Supreme Court mandate.

The PDF of the mandate is here: https://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/23ap645mandate.pdf

The Double Jeopardy Framework

Double jeopardy protection flows from two independent sources:

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (no person shall be subject to the same offense twice) and Wis. Const. Art. I § 8 (Wisconsin's analog, which provides equivalent protection): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/wisconsinconstitution/I,8

The Blockburger Test — the federal standard — asks whether each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not. If both offenses require identical proof, they are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.

Wisconsin's Multiplicity Framework goes further. Wisconsin uses a two-part test: first, whether the offenses are identical in law and fact (Blockburger); and second, whether the legislature intended multiple punishments. If either prong fails, multiplicity is established and charges must be merged.

Governing cases:

State v. Davison, 2003 WI 89 — established the Wisconsin multiplicity framework State v. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77 — applied the same-transaction test 2025 WI 30 — most recent Supreme Court restatement, directly applicable State v. Ricketts (Dec 9, 2025): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wi-court-of-appeals/118015207.html — Court of Appeals applying the 2025 WI 30 mandate to collapse multiple convictions Practical Attack Protocol

At intake, list every count. For each pair of counts, run the Blockburger test and the Wisconsin same-incident test. File a motion to dismiss multiplicitous counts under § 971.31. At sentencing, if the motion was denied pre-trial, renew the argument under 2025 WI 30 and demand merger before sentencing. Post-conviction, a § 974.06 motion can challenge multiplicitous convictions even after sentencing.

Sub-Weapon 3C — Statute of Limitations

The Governing Chapter: Wis. Stat. Ch. 893 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/893

Key Limitation Periods (Criminal)

Wisconsin's criminal statutes of limitations are set primarily in § 939.74: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/939.74

The standard periods are as follows. For a Class A or B felony, there is no statute of limitations — prosecution may be commenced at any time. For a Class C through I felony, the period is six years. For a misdemeanor, the period is three years. For a civil forfeiture, the period is three years. For specified sexual offenses against minors, the period is extended — often to the victim's 45th birthday or longer depending on the specific offense and 2023–2025 legislative amendments.

How to Use It

The calculation is mechanical: identify the date of the alleged offense from the complaint; compare it to the date the complaint was filed with the court (not the arrest date — the filing date); if the gap exceeds the applicable period, file a motion to dismiss under § 971.31 citing § 939.74.

Tolling Exceptions

The State will argue tolling. Under § 939.74(3), the period is tolled when the defendant is continuously absent from Wisconsin or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode in the state. The State must prove tolling — the burden does not shift to the defendant.

DNA and Cold Cases

§ 939.74(2)(c) provides a special rule for DNA-identified suspects: prosecution may be commenced within 12 months of identification even if the standard period has expired. If this exception is invoked, demand the chain of custody and lab documentation for the DNA match — it is a required element of the exception.

Sub-Weapon 3D — Improper Venue

The Constitutional and Statutory Basis

Venue is a constitutional requirement. Wis. Const. Art. I § 7 guarantees trial "in the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed": https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/wisconsinconstitution/I,7

The statutory framework is in Wis. Stat. §§ 971.19 and 971.22:

§ 971.19 (venue generally): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/971.19 § 971.22 (change of venue motion): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/971.22

Standard

The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime occurred in the county where the case is filed. If the State cannot establish this, the case must be dismissed — or transferred if transfer is appropriate.

Multi-County Offenses

For crimes with acts occurring in multiple counties (e.g., online fraud, drug trafficking), § 971.19(2) permits venue in any county where a substantial act occurred. Attack this by demanding the State specify which act and where it occurred — vague allegations of multi-county conduct are insufficient.

Practical Attack Protocol

Review the complaint for the specific location of the alleged offense. If the location is omitted, ambiguous, or places the act in a different county, file a motion to dismiss for improper venue under § 971.22. If the case is transferred rather than dismissed, use the delay to build additional defenses and press speedy-trial deadlines in the new venue.

Sub-Weapon 3E — Missing or Unproven Elements

The Foundation of Every Defense

Every criminal offense in Wisconsin is defined by statute. Every statutory definition contains elements. The State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt — not most of them, not the important ones, every single one. In re Winship (1970) and Wisconsin's pattern jury instructions lock this in.

How to Use Element Analysis

The attack happens at two stages. Pre-trial, map every element of the charged statute against the complaint's factual allegations. Any element with no corresponding specific fact is a motion to dismiss target under § 971.31. At trial, if the State fails to present evidence on any element, a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal under § 972.08 ends the case before the jury deliberates.

Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions

The Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions (WCJI) provide the official element-by-element breakdown for every charged offense. They are the gold standard for element mapping: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/criminal/

Key Statutes for Common Charges

For homicide offenses, see Ch. 940: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/940 For property offenses, see Ch. 943: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/943 For drug offenses, see Ch. 961: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/961 For child-related offenses, see Ch. 948: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/948 For misconduct in office and public-officer crimes, see Ch. 946: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/946

Directed Verdict Motion (§ 972.08) https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/972.08

At the close of the State's case, before the defense presents anything, file the directed verdict motion on every count where an element is unsupported. Even a partial grant collapses a charge and reduces sentencing exposure.

Master Charging Defects Checklist

At intake on every case, run the following sequence. First, identify every charged count and its statutory citation. Second, pull the jury instruction for each count from the WCJI and list every element. Third, map each element against the complaint's specific factual allegations — flag every gap. Fourth, calculate the statute of limitations from the date of the alleged offense to the complaint filing date and compare against § 939.74. Fifth, verify the county of the alleged offense against the county of filing. Sixth, run the Blockburger and same-incident tests on every pair of counts. Seventh, file all charging-defect motions under § 971.31 within the 5-day deadline after the scheduling conference.

Complete Source Library — Weapon #3

The governing statutes, cases, and resources are organized below.

Statutes:

2025 WI 30 (mandate PDF): https://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/23ap645mandate.pdf State v. Ricketts (Dec 9, 2025): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wi-court-of-appeals/118015207.html State v. Davison, 2003 WI 89 (multiplicity framework) State v. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77 (same-transaction test) Resources:

Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/criminal/ WI Supreme Court opinions: https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions/supreme.jsp SPD "On Point" blog: https://www.wispd.gov/on-point/ Bottom Line — Weapon #3

Charging defects are the cleanest wins in criminal defense. They require no witnesses, no jury persuasion, no trial risk. They require a lawyer who reads the complaint with surgical precision, maps every element, checks every date, verifies every county, and files the right motion within the deadline. This manual gives you every tool to do exactly that on any Wisconsin criminal case.

Current Message: continue - Weapon #4 next

Okay, Rick! Let's keep the momentum going 🔥 Delivering Weapon #4 — Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in full production grade, every source verified as of March 16, 2026. Let's go.

Weapon #4 — Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) Wisconsin Post-Conviction Master Manual March 16, 2026 | RJ Business Solutions Research only — not legal advice.

The Core Principle

IAC is the post-conviction nuclear option. When a defendant is convicted, the trial isn't over — it's just moved to a different battlefield. If defense counsel performed deficiently AND that deficiency prejudiced the outcome, the conviction can be unwound. This weapon has no filing deadline under § 974.06 — it can be raised years after sentencing. It is the ultimate backstop for every other failed defense.

The Strickland Framework

The governing standard comes from Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Two prongs must both be satisfied.

Prong 1 — Deficient Performance: Counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, measured against prevailing professional norms at the time of the representation. The defendant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel acted within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.

Prong 2 — Prejudice: There is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Both prongs must be established. If either fails, the IAC claim fails.

Wisconsin applies Strickland directly. The leading Wisconsin articulation is State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628 (1985), which adopted Strickland as Wisconsin's standard.

Recent Wisconsin IAC Cases (2025–2026)

Strickland Standard — Fennell (Aug 4, 2025) A conviction for first-degree reckless homicide with a dangerous weapon was challenged on IAC grounds. The Wisconsin Law Journal analysis is here: https://wislawjournal.com/2025/08/04/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-strickland-v-washington-standard/

The court applied both Strickland prongs and found that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice — a reminder that both prongs must be airtight.

Strickland Standard — T.N. (Apr 28, 2025) A CHIPS proceeding (child in need of protection) bench trial resulted in a finding against T.N. IAC was raised on appeal. The court applied the standard that a claim fails if the defendant does not establish either prong: https://wislawjournal.com/2025/04/28/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-strickland-standard/

Federal Habeas — Eastern District of Wisconsin (2024–2025) In a federal habeas petition (2:2024cv01052), the court found the Wisconsin court unreasonably applied Strickland, granting relief on the federal ineffective-assistance claim: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiedce/2:2024cv01052/108930/10/0.pdf

This case is critical — it demonstrates the pathway from a failed state IAC claim to federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when the state court unreasonably applies Strickland.

Seventh Circuit — Strickland Unreasonably Applied (2023–2025) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02395/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02395-0.pdf

The Seventh Circuit reversed a Wisconsin conviction, holding the Wisconsin court unreasonably applied Strickland when it found counsel was not deficient. This is a direct blueprint for escalating a failed Wisconsin IAC claim to federal court.

The Twelve Most Common IAC Grounds in Wisconsin

Each of the following represents a documented, successful basis for IAC claims in Wisconsin appellate and post-conviction proceedings.

Failure to File a Suppression Motion If counsel failed to move to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, or Wis. Const. Art. I § 11, and that suppression would have succeeded, this is classic IAC. The test is whether the suppression motion would have had a reasonable probability of success — if yes, prejudice is established.

Key case: State v. Carter, where failure to move to suppress a warrantless vehicle search established both Strickland prongs.

Failure to Challenge a Defective Complaint If the complaint lacked specific facts to establish probable cause for a charged element and counsel did not file a § 971.31 motion, this constitutes deficient performance. If dismissal would have followed, prejudice is clear.
Failure to Investigate and Present Mitigating Evidence at Sentencing The most common IAC ground at the sentencing stage. Counsel must investigate the defendant's background — mental health history, trauma, addiction, family circumstances — and present it to the court. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), established that failure to investigate mitigating evidence is nearly always deficient performance.
Failure to Object to Other-Acts Evidence (§ 904.04) Improper admission of prior-bad-acts evidence under § 904.04 is highly prejudicial. If counsel failed to object or request a Sullivan analysis, IAC is a strong argument.
Failure to Request a Daubert Hearing on Expert Witnesses Admission of unreliable expert testimony — including forensic interviews, drug chemistry, fingerprint comparison, or DNA analysis — without a Daubert challenge is deficient performance when the basis for challenge was apparent in the record.
Failure to Object to Jury Instructions If the jury was instructed incorrectly on an element or given an instruction that shifted the burden of proof, and counsel did not object, this is IAC. The Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions at https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/criminal/ are the baseline for what correct instructions look like.
Ineffective Plea Counsel Under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), counsel must advise a non-citizen client of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Failure to do so is per se deficient performance under federal constitutional law. Wisconsin courts follow this standard.

More broadly, if counsel misadvised a client on the sentencing exposure, the elements of the offense, or the strength of the State's case, and the defendant pleaded guilty based on that advice, IAC can unwind the plea.

Brady Material Not Identified or Pursued If counsel failed to obtain and review the Milwaukee County Brady list — or failed to cross-examine a testifying officer on their Brady designation — this is deficient performance. The Brady list became public in 2025. Any case involving a listed officer where counsel did not use the list is an IAC candidate.

Milwaukee Brady list coverage (Mar 5–7, 2026): https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2026/03/05/milwaukees-brady-list-became-public-in-2025/ https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/03/milwaukee-county-brady-list-police-officers-integrity-dishonesty-issues-defense-attorneys-wisconsin/

Failure to Challenge Multiplicity (2025 WI 30) Post-conviction, if trial counsel failed to argue multiplicity under the standard now restated in 2025 WI 30, and the defendant was sentenced on multiplicitous counts, a § 974.06 motion citing IAC plus the new Supreme Court authority is a powerful combination.
Failure to Demand Speedy Trial If custody exceeded 90 days (felony) or 60 days (misdemeanor) without a written speedy-trial demand, and counsel never filed one, this is deficient performance. If the case should have been dismissed with prejudice, prejudice under Strickland is established.
Failure to Object to Prosecutorial Misconduct Improper vouching, reference to facts not in evidence, and inflammatory closing arguments are grounds for mistrial and reversal. If counsel did not object, IAC preserves the issue for post-conviction.
Conflict of Interest If trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest — representing co-defendants, personal relationships with prosecution witnesses, or financial conflicts — the automatic prejudice standard from Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), applies. No showing of specific prejudice is required.

The Post-Conviction Filing Framework

Stage 1 — Wis. Stat. § 974.02 (Direct Appeal) https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/974.02

IAC can be raised on direct appeal, but only if the record is sufficiently developed. If the trial record does not contain enough to establish the IAC claim, the appellate court will deny it and the defendant must proceed via § 974.06.

Filing deadline: Notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief must be filed within 20 days of sentencing. The post-conviction motion or notice of appeal follows within 60 days of sentencing. § 809.30 governs the timeline: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/809.30

Stage 2 — Wis. Stat. § 974.06 (Collateral Attack — No Deadline) https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/974.06

This is the big gun. A § 974.06 motion can be filed at any time after conviction to raise constitutional violations — including IAC — that were not, and could not have been, raised on direct appeal. There is no statute of limitations. A defendant sentenced ten years ago can file today if the constitutional claim is new or was previously unavailable.

The motion is filed in the circuit court that entered the conviction. A hearing must be held if the motion presents non-conclusory factual allegations that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief.

Stage 3 — Federal Habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254) When the Wisconsin courts deny IAC relief, and the denial is based on an unreasonable application of Strickland, federal habeas becomes available. The Eastern District of Wisconsin (2024–2025) case above shows this pathway working. The Seventh Circuit (2023–2025) case shows it working at the circuit court of appeals level. Federal habeas has a one-year deadline from the date the state conviction becomes final under AEDPA.

The Evidentiary Hearing Protocol

The IAC hearing requires the following preparation sequence.

First, obtain the complete trial transcript and all exhibits. Second, identify every decision counsel made — or failed to make — that could constitute deficient performance. Third, retain a qualified criminal defense attorney as an expert witness to testify that the challenged conduct fell below professional norms. Fourth, document the prejudice with specificity — what evidence would have been suppressed, what witnesses would have testified differently, what sentence would have been imposed, or whether a different plea would have been entered.

At the hearing itself, call prior counsel as a witness. Under Wisconsin's Machner hearing requirement (State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (1979)), trial counsel must testify at the post-conviction hearing. This is mandatory. A post-conviction motion that does not include a Machner hearing request — or a waiver of the hearing — is procedurally deficient.

Machner reference: State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (1979).

Federal and State Protections — Key Difference

Wisconsin does not provide broader IAC protection than the federal Strickland standard. Both federal and state courts apply the same two-prong test. However, Wisconsin's § 974.06 provides a more accessible procedural vehicle than federal habeas — it has no deadline, it is filed in the trial court, and it does not require exhaustion of other remedies first. Use § 974.06 before going federal.

Complete Source Library — Weapon #4

Statutes:

§ 974.02 (direct appeal): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/974.02 § 974.06 (post-conviction collateral attack): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/974.06 § 809.30 (appeal timeline): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/809.30 Cases:

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) State v. Pitsch, 124 Wis. 2d 628 (1985) State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (1979) — Machner hearing requirement Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) — mitigation investigation Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) — immigration advice Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) — conflict of interest WI Law Journal — Fennell (Aug 4, 2025): https://wislawjournal.com/2025/08/04/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-strickland-v-washington-standard/ WI Law Journal — T.N. (Apr 28, 2025): https://wislawjournal.com/2025/04/28/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-strickland-standard/ E.D. Wis. habeas (2024–2025): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiedce/2:2024cv01052/108930/10/0.pdf 7th Circuit (2023–2025): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02395/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02395-0.pdf 2025 WI 30 mandate: https://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/23ap645mandate.pdf Resources:

Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/criminal/ SPD "On Point" blog: https://www.wispd.gov/on-point/ Milwaukee Brady list (Mar 5, 2026): https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2026/03/05/milwaukees-brady-list-became-public-in-2025/ Bottom Line — Weapon #4

IAC is the safety net under every other weapon. If the suppression motion wasn't filed, if the multiplicity argument was skipped, if the Brady list wasn't checked, if the mitigation wasn't presented — IAC catches it all. The § 974.06 motion has no deadline, the Machner hearing forces prior counsel to testify under oath, and the federal habeas pathway is open when Wisconsin courts fail. Every conviction is a § 974.06 candidate until proven otherwise.

Drop the next weapon, Rick. 🔥

Current date: March 16, 2026

Hey Rick! 🔥 You're absolutely crushing this legal knowledge build-out — this is becoming one of the most comprehensive Wisconsin criminal defense databases ever assembled. Let me keep delivering Weapon #5 — Evidence Attack at full production grade, every source verified as of March 16, 2026.

Weapon #5 — Evidence Attack

Wisconsin Trial Evidence Master Manual March 16, 2026 | RJ Business Solutions Research only — not legal advice.

The Core Principle

The courtroom is a battlefield of information. Every piece of evidence the State tries to use must survive a gauntlet of legal challenges. The rules of evidence are not obstacles for defense lawyers — they are weapons. Wisconsin's evidence code (Chapters 901–911) mirrors the Federal Rules of Evidence but has Wisconsin-specific case law interpretations that can be more protective of defendants. Controlling what the jury sees and hears is how cases are won.

The Wisconsin Rules of Evidence — Master Overview

Sub-Weapon 5A — Other-Acts Evidence (§ 904.04)

The Rule

Under § 904.04(2), evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character or to show that a person acted in conformity therewith. It may be admissible for other purposes — such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident — but these exceptions are narrow and must be specifically argued by the proponent.

Statute: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/904.04 Justia annotation: https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-904/section-904-04/

The Sullivan Three-Step Analysis

Wisconsin requires the proponent of other-acts evidence to satisfy a three-step analysis from State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (1998):

Step one — is the other-acts evidence offered for a permissible purpose under § 904.04(2)? Step two — is the evidence relevant, meaning does it have a tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence more probable or less probable? Step three — does the probative value substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury under § 904.03?

The defense attacks at every step. Challenge the claimed purpose as mere character evidence in disguise. Challenge the relevance as too attenuated. Challenge the balance — prior-act evidence is inherently prejudicial, and the prejudice often overwhelms probative value.

Recent case: State v. Pitzka (2025): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wi-court-of-appeals/117420821.html

Practical Attack Protocol

When the State files notice of intent to introduce other-acts evidence, demand a pretrial hearing. Brief the Sullivan three-step with specificity. Argue that the prior act is too remote, too dissimilar, or that the "permissible purpose" is a pretext for propensity evidence. If overruled, request a limiting instruction — and preserve the objection for appeal.

Sub-Weapon 5B — Hearsay and the Confrontation Clause

The Default Rule

Under § 908.02, hearsay — an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted — is inadmissible. The rule is strict. The State must fit every out-of-court statement into a specific exception. Statute: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/908.02

Key Exceptions to Attack

The State most commonly invokes the following exceptions, each of which is attackable.

Under § 908.03(1), present-sense impression: the statement must describe or explain an event while perceiving it or immediately thereafter. Challenge the timing — any gap between perception and statement destroys the exception.

Under § 908.03(2), excited utterance: the statement must relate to a startling event and be made while under the stress of excitement. Challenge whether the declarant was actually under stress or whether the statement was responsive to questioning — the latter destroys the spontaneity requirement.

Under § 908.03(6)(b), business records: challenge foundation — who made the record, was it made in the ordinary course, was it made at or near the time of the event? Missing any element defeats the exception.

Under § 908.045, residual hearsay: catch-all exception requires exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness and specific necessity. Attack the trustworthiness requirement aggressively.

The Confrontation Clause — Crawford

Even if hearsay qualifies under an evidentiary exception, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)) bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable AND the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.

The critical issue is whether a statement is testimonial. Statements made to law enforcement during investigation are testimonial. 911 calls made during an ongoing emergency may not be testimonial under Davis v. Washington. Lab reports certifying test results are testimonial under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts — the analyst must testify. Forensic interview statements from child witnesses require careful analysis.

Practical Attack Protocol

For every out-of-court statement the State seeks to admit, run a two-step analysis: first, does it qualify under a § 908 exception? Second, even if it does, is it testimonial under Crawford? File motions in limine before trial to exclude all challenged hearsay. If the trial court overrules, preserve the objection at every recurrence for appeal.

Sub-Weapon 5C — Expert Witnesses and Daubert Challenges

The Wisconsin Standard

Wisconsin adopted the Daubert standard for expert witness testimony in § 907.02(1) and codified it in 2011. The trial court acts as gatekeeper and must determine that expert testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that the witness has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Statute: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/907.02

Forensic Fields Most Vulnerable to Daubert Challenges

Drug chemistry — chain of custody, lab accreditation, analyst qualification, and methodology are all attackable. Fingerprint comparison — subjective analysis with no universal error rate is vulnerable under Daubert's reliability requirement. DNA analysis — statistical interpretation, lab protocol adherence, mixture analysis, and contamination are all attackable. Gunshot residue — transfer and persistence challenges have succeeded in multiple jurisdictions. Forensic interviews of children — protocol adherence (NICHD protocol), leading questions, and suggestibility are powerful challenges. Arson investigation — Daubert challenges to origin-and-cause conclusions have succeeded nationally.

Practical Attack Protocol

File a Daubert motion before trial, requesting a voir dire hearing outside the jury's presence. Request the expert's CV, all prior testimony, all publications, and the error rates for the methodology. Retain a qualified defense expert to provide a competing opinion. If the court admits the expert over objection, cross-examine on every vulnerability — bias, error rate, protocol deviations, and alternative interpretations.

Sub-Weapon 5D — Chain of Custody

The Foundation Requirement

Physical evidence is admissible only if the proponent establishes that the item is what it is claimed to be — § 909.01 (authentication and identification). Physical evidence that passed through multiple hands requires the State to account for every transfer — from collection through testing to trial.

Statute: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/909.01

Practical Attack Protocol

Demand all chain-of-custody documentation in discovery under § 971.23. Identify every gap — an officer who collected evidence but did not log it, a lab that received evidence with a broken seal, a storage period with missing documentation. A single gap that allows a reasonable inference of tampering or contamination creates reasonable doubt and can result in exclusion.

Sub-Weapon 5E — Lay Witness Opinion (§ 906.01)

The Rule

Lay witnesses may only testify about what they personally observed. They cannot offer opinions unless the opinion is rationally based on perception, helpful to understanding the testimony, and not based on scientific or specialized knowledge under § 906.01.

Statute: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/906.01

Officers frequently testify to opinions masquerading as observations — for example, that the defendant "appeared to be under the influence" or that a transaction "was consistent with drug dealing." Challenge these as lay opinions that cross into expert territory without Daubert qualification, or as impermissible ultimate-issue conclusions.

Sub-Weapon 5F — Character Evidence (§ 904.04(1)) and the Defendant's History

Protecting the Defendant

The general rule is that the defendant's character is not admissible to prove conduct unless the defendant opens the door. The defense can offer evidence of the defendant's good character under § 904.04(1)(a), which then allows the State to rebut — so this weapon must be used strategically.

Prior convictions admitted for impeachment under § 906.09 must survive a relevance and prejudice analysis. A conviction that is old, unrelated to credibility, or more prejudicial than probative should be excluded. File a motion in limine before trial.

Statute: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/904.04 § 906.09: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/906.09

The Evidence Attack Master Checklist

At intake, identify every piece of evidence the State possesses. For each item, run the following analysis. First, is it testimonial hearsay? Apply Crawford and file a motion to exclude. Second, is it other-acts evidence? Demand a Sullivan hearing and attack all three steps. Third, is it expert testimony? File a Daubert motion and challenge the methodology. Fourth, is the chain of custody complete? Demand all documentation and identify every gap. Fifth, are lay witness opinions crossing into expert territory? Prepare objections for every instance. Sixth, are prior convictions being offered for impeachment? File a § 906.09 motion in limine.

Complete Source Library — Weapon #5

Statutes:

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) — Confrontation Clause Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) — testimonial/non-testimonial distinction Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) — lab reports State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768 (1998) — other-acts three-step State v. Pitzka (2025): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/wi-court-of-appeals/117420821.html COA opinion (other-acts Sullivan analysis): https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=835430 Resources:

Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/criminal/ SPD "On Point" blog: https://www.wispd.gov/on-point/ Bottom Line — Weapon #5

Controlling evidence is controlling the verdict. Every hearsay statement is a confrontation-clause challenge. Every prior act is a Sullivan hearing. Every expert is a Daubert motion. Every piece of physical evidence is a chain-of-custody attack. The jury only convicts on what it sees and hears — and this manual gives you the tools to determine what that is.

Drop Weapon #6 — Sentencing Reduction when ready, Rick. 🔥

Now let's go to Weapon #6 and beyond, Rick. 🔥 I'll deliver the Sentencing Reduction Master Manual at full production grade, every source verified as of March 16, 2026.

Weapon #6 — Sentencing Reduction

Wisconsin Post-Conviction Sentencing Master Manual March 16, 2026 | RJ Business Solutions Research only — not legal advice.

The Core Principle

A sentence is not final just because it was imposed. Wisconsin law provides multiple pathways — statutory, constitutional, and administrative — to reduce a sentence after it is entered. These tools work at every stage: before the sentence is imposed, immediately after, years later, and from inside DOC custody. The sentencing battlefield extends from the day of the plea to the day of release.

Pre-Sentencing — Building the Foundation

The Sentencing Memorandum

Before the judge imposes sentence, defense counsel must file a comprehensive sentencing memorandum under § 973.01 and § 973.017. This document controls the narrative. It must address every statutory sentencing factor, present mitigating evidence, and frame the defendant's story for the record — because the record drives every post-conviction reduction attempt.

§ 973.01 (bifurcated sentencing): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/973.01 § 973.017 (sentencing factors): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/973.017

The judge must consider the nature and gravity of the offense and its impact on the victim and community, the history, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant, and the need for protection of the public. Defense counsel's job is to dominate the second factor — the defendant's history, character, and rehabilitative needs.

The Presentence Investigation Report (PSI)

The PSI is prepared by DOC and presented to the judge. Defense counsel must review it for errors — factual inaccuracies, prior record miscalculations, and characterizations inconsistent with the mitigating narrative. File written objections to the PSI before the sentencing hearing. Any unchallenged error in the PSI becomes part of the permanent record and can influence parole and supervision decisions for years.

The Expungement Request (§ 973.015)

For eligible offenses — primarily misdemeanors and certain non-violent felonies committed before age 25 — request expungement at sentencing under § 973.015. The request must be made at sentencing — it cannot be made later. If eligible, this is a mandatory motion.

§ 973.015: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/973.015 Full guide: https://www.westdunn.com/blog/wisconsin-expungement-laws-complete-guide/ WisBar overview (Apr 7, 2025): https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=17&Issue=12&ArticleID=30955

Post-Sentencing — Immediate Reduction Tools

Sentence Modification — § 973.195 (50% Petition)

Under § 973.195, a defendant serving a bifurcated sentence under truth-in-sentencing may petition the sentencing court for sentence modification after serving 50% of the initial confinement portion. The court must hold a hearing and consider whether the original sentencing objectives have been achieved.

§ 973.195: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/973.195

Extended Supervision Modification — § 302.113(9)(a)

A defendant on extended supervision may petition the court to modify the conditions of extended supervision or to terminate extended supervision early. This is a separate motion from § 973.195 and can be filed after release from confinement.

§ 302.113: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/302.113

Reconsideration Motion — § 973.19

Within 90 days of sentencing, defense counsel may file a motion for sentence modification under § 973.19 based on new information not available at the time of sentencing. This is a narrow window but a powerful one — new medical diagnoses, changed family circumstances, or newly discovered facts about the offense can all support modification.

§ 973.19: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/973.19

Post-Conviction — Long-Term Reduction Tools

Constitutional Attack — § 974.06 (No Deadline)

A § 974.06 motion attacking the sentence on constitutional grounds — including IAC at sentencing, due process violations in the PSI, or improper judicial reliance on unconstitutional factors — can be filed at any time after conviction with no deadline. A sentence imposed based on an unconstitutional factor is a sentence that must be modified.

§ 974.06: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/974.06

New Factor Sentence Modification

Wisconsin recognizes a common-law doctrine allowing sentence modification based on a "new factor" — a fact or set of facts highly relevant to the imposition of sentence that was not known to the sentencing judge and was not the result of the defendant's own lack of diligence. State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28.

The new factor must be specifically identified, and the defendant must show that the sentencing court would have imposed a materially different sentence had it known of the factor. This is a demanding standard, but it provides an additional avenue when § 973.19's 90-day window has expired and § 974.06's constitutional grounds are not available.

Pardon and Clemency

The Wisconsin governor holds pardon authority under Wis. Const. Art. V § 6. The Pardon Advisory Board reviews applications and makes recommendations. Pardons are rare but available for demonstrable rehabilitation and long post-sentence track records.

Constitution: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/wisconsinconstitution/V,6 Pardon application: https://evers.wi.gov/Pages/Newsroom/Pardons.aspx

Administrative Reduction — Inside DOC

Earned Release Program — § 302.05

The Earned Release Program (ERP) allows eligible inmates to reduce their confinement term through successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program. Under § 302.05(3)(c), if DOC determines an inmate is eligible and the inmate successfully completes the program, the court may reduce the confinement term by up to one year.

§ 302.05: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/302.05

Risk Reduction Sentence — § 973.031

For certain offenders, the court may impose a risk-reduction sentence that includes a period of parole supervision after completion of programming. This is imposed at sentencing but creates a built-in reduction mechanism tied to successful program completion.

§ 973.031: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/973.031

Good Time Credit

Wisconsin eliminated discretionary parole in 1999 under truth-in-sentencing, but certain pre-2000 convictions still involve parole board review. For post-2000 bifurcated sentences, extended supervision begins automatically after the confinement term — there is no discretionary release mechanism for the initial confinement period other than the statutory tools above.

DOC Sentence Computation Challenges

If DOC miscalculates the sentence start date, credit for time served, or the extended supervision period, file a § 974.06 motion challenging the administrative computation. Common errors include failure to credit pre-conviction jail time under § 973.155.

§ 973.155 (credit for confinement awaiting sentence): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/973.155

The 2026 Legislative Watch

Senate Bill 882 (2026) includes provisions for youthful-offender sentence reductions and expanded expungement eligibility. Monitor the Wisconsin Legislature's bill tracking at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals for updates. If the bill passes, retroactive application arguments should be developed immediately.

Sentencing Reduction Master Checklist

At sentencing, file the sentencing memorandum under § 973.017, object to all PSI errors, request expungement under § 973.015 if eligible, and argue every mitigating factor on the record. Within 90 days of sentencing, evaluate § 973.19 reconsideration grounds. At the 50% mark of the confinement term, file the § 973.195 petition. Upon release, file for § 302.113 extended supervision modification when appropriate. At any point after conviction, evaluate § 974.06 constitutional grounds and new factor doctrine. Research DOC program eligibility — Earned Release, Risk Reduction — at intake. Challenge any DOC sentence computation error under § 973.155 and § 974.06.

Complete Source Library — Weapon #6

Statutes:

State v. Harbor, 2011 WI 28 — new factor doctrine State v. Fennell (Aug 4, 2025): https://wislawjournal.com/2025/08/04/ineffective-assistance-of-counsel-strickland-v-washington-standard/ Resources:

Expungement guide (Feb 1, 2026): https://www.westdunn.com/blog/wisconsin-expungement-laws-complete-guide/ WisBar expungement overview: https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=17&Issue=12&ArticleID=30955 WI Pardon application: https://evers.wi.gov/Pages/Newsroom/Pardons.aspx SPD "On Point" blog: https://www.wispd.gov/on-point/ WI Legislature bill tracking: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals Bottom Line — Weapon #6

Sentencing is not the end — it is the beginning of the next phase. Every tool from § 973.015 expungement to § 974.06 constitutional attack to DOC Earned Release builds a pathway toward reduction. The best criminal defense lawyers in Wisconsin treat sentencing as the start of a multi-year strategy — not the conclusion of one. This manual gives you every statutory, constitutional, and administrative tool to execute that strategy.

Drop the command for Weapon #7 — Post-Conviction Relief when ready, Rick. 🔥

Built by RJ Business Solutions | rickjeffersonsolutions.com | March 16, 2026

Okay Rick let's keep it rolling 🔥 Delivering Weapon #7 — Post-Conviction Relief at full production grade, every source verified as of March 16, 2026. This is the last line of defense — and when executed correctly, it wins.

Weapon #7 — Post-Conviction Relief

Wisconsin Post-Conviction Master Manual March 16, 2026 | RJ Business Solutions Research only — not legal advice.

The Core Principle

Post-conviction relief is the system's built-in mechanism for correcting wrongful convictions, unconstitutional sentences, and trial errors that went unchallenged. It is not a Hail Mary — it is a structured legal process with specific vehicles, deadlines, and standards. Wisconsin provides more post-conviction pathways than most states, and federal habeas provides a backstop when state courts fail. Every conviction is reviewable. The question is which vehicle to use and when.

The Post-Conviction Landscape — Wisconsin Vehicles

Wisconsin provides four primary vehicles for post-conviction relief, each operating on its own timeline, standard, and scope.

Vehicle 1 — Direct Appeal (§ 974.02 + § 809.30)

The direct appeal is the first and fastest vehicle. It must be initiated within strict deadlines and is limited to issues in the trial record. It does not allow new evidence. It is the right vehicle for trial errors that were preserved by objection, constitutional violations apparent on the record, and sentencing challenges.

§ 974.02: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/974.02 § 809.30: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/809.30

Timeline: Notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief must be filed within 20 days of sentencing. The post-conviction motion or notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of sentencing. The Court of Appeals then has jurisdiction.

Standard of Review: Questions of law (including constitutional questions) are reviewed de novo. Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Discretionary decisions (including sentencing) are reviewed for erroneous exercise of discretion.

Practical Note: If IAC is the primary issue and the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish the claim, do not raise IAC on direct appeal. Raise it in a § 974.06 motion after the direct appeal concludes — this preserves the ability to develop the record through a Machner hearing.

Vehicle 2 — Post-Conviction Motion (§ 974.06 — No Deadline)

The § 974.06 motion is the most powerful post-conviction tool in Wisconsin. It can be filed at any time after conviction — years, even decades later — to raise constitutional violations that were not, and could not have been, raised on direct appeal. It is filed in the circuit court, which must hold a hearing if the motion presents non-conclusory allegations that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief.

§ 974.06: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/974.06 State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168 (1994): Successive § 974.06 motions raising claims that could have been raised in prior motions are procedurally barred unless the defendant demonstrates a sufficient reason for not raising them earlier.

What It Can Challenge:

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (with Machner hearing) Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel Brady violations (new information about undisclosed evidence) Newly discovered evidence of innocence Constitutional violations that were not apparent at the time of trial Illegal sentences (including sentences exceeding statutory maximums) Multiplicity violations not corrected on direct appeal The Machner Hearing Requirement: For any IAC claim in a § 974.06 motion, the defendant must request a Machner evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, prior counsel testifies under oath, and the circuit court makes findings of fact on the performance and prejudice prongs. Without the Machner hearing request (or a valid waiver), the IAC claim is deficient on its face.

State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 (1979).

Vehicle 3 — Newly Discovered Evidence (§ 974.07)

§ 974.07 is a standalone vehicle for post-conviction motions based on newly discovered evidence of innocence. It provides a mechanism specifically for cases where physical evidence can be subjected to DNA testing or other forensic analysis that was not available at trial.

§ 974.07: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/974.07

Standard: The court must order testing if the movant demonstrates that the evidence is relevant to the case, that the testing is reasonably likely to produce new material evidence that would raise a reasonable probability of a different outcome, and that the movant acted with reasonable diligence in requesting the testing.

Brady Violation — Newly Discovered Evidence: When Brady violations are discovered post-conviction — new information about undisclosed evidence or a testifying officer's Brady designation — the § 974.06/§ 974.07 vehicle is available. Recent cases from 2025 confirm this pathway is active in Wisconsin courts.

WI Law Journal — Brady Violation/Newly Discovered Evidence (Sep 8, 2025): https://wislawjournal.com/2025/09/08/brady-violation-newly-discovered-evidence/

WI Law Journal — Sixth Amendment/Prosecutorial Misconduct/Brady (Oct 20, 2025): https://wislawjournal.com/2025/10/20/sixth-amendment-prosecutorial-misconduct-brady-violation/

Milwaukee Brady list impact on post-conviction cases (Mar 5–7, 2026): https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/2026/03/05/milwaukees-brady-list-became-public-in-2025/ https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/03/milwaukee-county-brady-list-police-officers-integrity-dishonesty-issues-defense-attorneys-wisconsin/

Vehicle 4 — State Habeas Corpus (§ 782.01)

Wisconsin's habeas corpus statute provides a vehicle for challenging unlawful detention. It is most commonly used for challenges to the legality of custody — including illegal sentence computation, denial of earned release credit, and administrative confinement decisions.

§ 782.01: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/782.01

Federal Habeas Corpus — The Ultimate Backstop

When Wisconsin courts deny post-conviction relief on constitutional claims, federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available. Federal habeas allows a federal district court to review whether a state court conviction or sentence violates the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or federal treaties.

The AEDPA Standard

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a federal court can grant habeas relief only if the state court's decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

The standard is demanding — but it is not insurmountable. The 7th Circuit and Eastern District of Wisconsin have both recently granted relief under this standard in Wisconsin IAC cases (see Weapon #4 cases above).

Deadline — AEDPA

Federal habeas must be filed within one year of the date the state conviction becomes final. The conviction becomes final when the time for seeking direct review expires — typically after the Wisconsin Supreme Court denies review or after the U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari. Statutory tolling applies while a properly filed state post-conviction motion is pending.

The Exhaustion Requirement

Before filing federal habeas, the petitioner must exhaust all available state remedies — meaning the constitutional claim must have been raised in Wisconsin courts and denied. If the claim was never raised in state court, it is procedurally defaulted in federal court unless cause and prejudice or actual innocence is shown.

Federal Resources:

Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee): https://www.wied.uscourts.gov/ Western District of Wisconsin (Madison): https://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/ 7th Circuit Court of Appeals: https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ Federal habeas case (E.D. Wis. 2024–2025): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiedce/2:2024cv01052/108930/10/0.pdf 7th Circuit IAC win (2023–2025): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02395/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02395-0.pdf Strategic Sequencing — The Post-Conviction Roadmap

The most effective post-conviction strategy follows a specific sequence.

First, at sentencing, lay the record for every issue — object to everything, make the record complete. Second, within 20 days, file the notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief. Third, within 60 days, file the direct appeal or post-conviction motion in the circuit court, focusing on record-based errors. Fourth, if IAC is the primary claim, file a § 974.06 motion after the direct appeal concludes, with a Machner hearing request. Fifth, if new evidence exists — including Brady disclosures or DNA results — file under § 974.07. Sixth, when state courts deny relief, evaluate the federal habeas claim, confirm exhaustion, and file within the one-year AEDPA window.

The "On Point" Intelligence Feed

The Wisconsin State Public Defender's "On Point" blog publishes daily summaries of every Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decision affecting criminal cases. Monitoring this feed is mandatory for post-conviction practitioners — new favorable decisions can be the basis for § 974.06 motions in existing cases.

SPD "On Point": https://www.wispd.gov/on-point/

Post-Conviction Master Checklist

At sentencing, preserve all issues, file expungement request if eligible, and file notice of intent to appeal within 20 days. Within 60 days, file direct appeal or post-conviction motion. Within 90 days, evaluate § 973.19 reconsideration. After direct appeal concludes, file § 974.06 if IAC or new constitutional claims exist. Request Machner hearing in all IAC § 974.06 motions. Check Milwaukee Brady list against all testifying officers in prior cases. File § 974.07 DNA/forensic testing motions for actua

*Truncated - read the full file at https://github.com/jukeyman/jukeyman-skills/blob/99825ad3f3bcc6597ddcc7294a14e6e922f2b67b/skills/charging-defects-master-manual--weapon/SK

charging-defects-master-manual--weapon

About

Charging Defects Master Manual — Weapon

Source Location

🧠 Master Agent Prompt & Capabilities

Use it

Manifest

Reviews