Marathon County, WI DUI-DWI Lawyers, page 6


Steven H. Schinker

Construction, Litigation, Energy, Contract
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  31 Years

Amanda R. Rabe

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  13 Years

Christine R H Olsen

Government, Divorce, Divorce & Family Law, Business
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  38 Years

Amy E. Wesner

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  16 Years

Douglas R. Ross

Class Action, Wrongful Death, Car Accident, Accident & Injury, Mass Torts
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  23 Years

Shanna N. Yonke

International, Estate, Divorce & Family Law, Business
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  12 Years

Thomas M. Hruz

Federal Appellate Practice, Corporate, Employment Discrimination, Insurance
Status:  Inactive           Licensed:  23 Years

G Lane Ware

Transactions, Business Organization, Contract, Corporate
Status:  Inactive           Licensed:  60 Years

Scott Alan Jackman

Landlord-Tenant, Family Law, Divorce & Family Law, Misdemeanor
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  27 Years

John A. Kramer

Divorce & Family Law
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  37 Years

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 Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, 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 Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.

TIPS

Easily find Wisconsin DUI-DWI Lawyers and Wisconsin DUI-DWI Law Firms for your location. Narrow your DUI-DWI attorney search for Wisconsin by major city or a specific Wisconsin city using the city list. Or search for Wisconsin DUI-DWI attorneys by county. For more attorneys, search all Criminal areas including Expungement, Felony, Misdemeanor, RICO Act, White Collar Crime, Traffic and Juvenile Law attorneys.

LEGAL TERMS

CRIMINAL CASE

A lawsuit brought by a prosecutor employed by the federal, state or local government that charges a person with the commission of a crime.

ACQUITTAL

A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusio... (more...)
A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

CRIME

A type of behavior that is has been defined by the state, as deserving of punishment which usually includes imprisonment. Crimes and their punishments are defin... (more...)
A type of behavior that is has been defined by the state, as deserving of punishment which usually includes imprisonment. Crimes and their punishments are defined by Congress and state legislatures.

PLEA

The defendant's formal answer to criminal charges. Typically defendants enter one of the following pleas: guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. A plea is usual... (more...)
The defendant's formal answer to criminal charges. Typically defendants enter one of the following pleas: guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. A plea is usually entered when charges are formally brought (at arraignment).

INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main r... (more...)
Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main reason why evidence is ruled inadmissible is because it falls into a category deemed so unreliable that a court should not consider it as part of a deciding a case --for example, hearsay evidence, or an expert's opinion that is not based on facts generally accepted in the field. Evidence will also be declared inadmissible if it suffers from some other defect--for example, as compared to its value, it will take too long to present or risks enflaming the jury, as might be the case with graphic pictures of a homicide victim. In addition, in criminal cases, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible. Because the rules of evidence are so complicated (and because contesting lawyers waste so much time arguing over them) there is a strong trend towards using mediation or arbitration to resolve civil disputes. In mediation and arbitration, virtually all evidence can be considered. See evidence, admissible evidence.

BAIL BOND

The money posted by a 'bondsman' for a defendant who cannot afford his bail. The defendant pays a certain portion, usually 10%. If the defendant fails to appear... (more...)
The money posted by a 'bondsman' for a defendant who cannot afford his bail. The defendant pays a certain portion, usually 10%. If the defendant fails to appear for a court hearing, the judge can issue a warrant for his arrest and threaten to 'forfeit,' or keep, the money if the defendant doesn't appear soon. Usually, the bondsman will look for the defendant and bring him back, forcefully if necessary, in order to avoid losing the bail money.

BURDEN OF PROOF

A party's job of convincing the decisionmaker in a trial that the party's version of the facts is true. In a civil trial, it means that the plaintiff must convi... (more...)
A party's job of convincing the decisionmaker in a trial that the party's version of the facts is true. In a civil trial, it means that the plaintiff must convince the judge or jury 'by a preponderance of the evidence' that the plaintiff's version is true -- that is, over 50% of the believable evidence is in the plaintiff's favor. In a criminal case, because a person's liberty is at stake, the government has a harder job, and must convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

FEDERAL COURT

A branch of the United States government with power derived directly from the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts decide cases involving the U.S. Constitution, fe... (more...)
A branch of the United States government with power derived directly from the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts decide cases involving the U.S. Constitution, federal law--for example, patents, federal taxes, labor law and federal crimes, such as robbing a federally chartered bank--and cases where the parties are from different states and are involved in a dispute for $75,000 or more.

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

A signed statement, sworn to be true by the signer, that will make the signer guilty of the crime of perjury if the statement is shown to be materially false --... (more...)
A signed statement, sworn to be true by the signer, that will make the signer guilty of the crime of perjury if the statement is shown to be materially false -- that is, the lie is relevant and significant to the case.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

State v. Carter

... Id. at 100. In rejecting the plaintiff's challenge, the court clarified that a summary suspension under the "zero tolerance" law is not a summary suspension under DUI law, and therefore "[p]laintiff's reliance on DUI law is puzzling because plaintiff was not arrested for DUI." Id. ...

State v. Carter

... Id. at 100. In rejecting the plaintiff's challenge, the court clarified that a summary suspension under the "zero tolerance" law is not a summary suspension under DUI law, and therefore "[p]laintiff's reliance on DUI law is puzzling because plaintiff was not arrested for DUI." Id. ...

State v. MALSBURY

... The State counters that because Malsbury's Washington conviction was originally charged as driving under the influence (DUI) and later amended to reckless driving with OWI-like penalties, the conviction counts for purposes of Wisconsin's OWI laws. ...