State ex rel. Niedziejko v. Coffey
| Citation | 22 Wis.2d 392,127 N.W.2d 14 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. Joseph NIEDZIEJKO, Appellant, v. John L. COFFEY, Acting as Magistrate-John Doe Proceeding, Respondent. STATE ex rel. Alfred KACZKOWSKI, Appellant, v. John L. COFFEY, Acting as Magistrate-John Doe Proceeding, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1964 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
On motion for rehearing.
For original opinion see 22 Wis.2d 392, 126 N.W.2d 96.
George Thompson, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Robert D. Martinson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Louis J. Ceci, Milwaukee, for appellants.
We remanded this matter to the circuit court with directions to grant prohibition absolute to restrain the magistrate from threatening loss of employment and disclosure, except as expressly authorized by statute, of any part of the record and testimony or summaries thereof. In so doing we deemed the facts alleged in the petitions to be admitted by respondents' motions to quash. Respondent now requests that we permit him to file a return in the circuit court to raise issues of fact. He has submitted his affidavit to show the allegations he would make if permitted.
Respondent asserts that after refusal of appellants to testify, respondent advised their attorney during a conference 'that it would be incumbent upon [respondent] to notify the Chief of Police that two of his officers had refused to testify on the ground that their answers might tend to incriminate them * * *' Under the circumstances this assertion sufficiently supports the allegations of the petition with respect to threat of loss of employment and report to appellants' superior officers. It would raise no material issue of fact even though elsewhere in the affidavit respondent alleges that during the interrogation he did not threaten appellants.
Respondent asserts that on June 5, 1963, respondent notified the chief of police that appellants had refused to testify on the grounds of self incrimination. As stated in our opinion, such disclosure of a portion of the record was a violation of sec. 954.025, Stats. The disclosure had, however, occurred before the commencement of this action. The principle that prohibition will not lie against the prior disclosure has already been stated in the opinion.
Respondent has not shown sufficient cause for permission to plead over.
Motion for rehearing denied, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Lynch v. County Court, Branch III
...and extraordinary remedy, State ex rel. Klinkiewicz v. Duffy, 35 Wis.2d 369, 375, 151 N.W.2d 63 (1967); State ex rel. Niedziejko v. Coffey, 22 Wis.2d 392, 401, 126 N.W.2d 96, 127 N.W.2d 14 (1964), and its invocation is subject to stringent prerequisites. State ex rel. Jefferson v. Roraff, P......
-
State v. Washington
...and intends to persist, he or she can be restrained by writ of prohibition for abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Niedziejko v. Coffey, 22 Wis.2d 392, 401, 402, 126 N.W.2d 96 (1964). As the State noted in its brief, the John Doe judge must "conduct himself as a neutral and detached magistra......
-
State ex rel. La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County
...65 Wis.2d 66, 221 N.W.2d 894 (1974); State ex rel. Jackson v. Coffey, 18 Wis.2d 529, 118 N.W.2d 939 (1963); and State ex rel. Niedziejko v. Coffey, 22 Wis.2d 392, 126 N.W.2d 96, 127 N.W.2d 14 (1964), expressly held that the term, "sitting," as used in sec. 757.14, encompassed pretrial immun......
-
State ex rel. Klinkiewicz v. Duffy
...the case to another qualified magistrate of the county and he shall proceed with the examination.'10 State ex rel. Niedziejko v. Coffey (1964), 22 Wis.2d 392, 396, 126 N.W.2d 96, rehearing denied 22 Wis.2d 402a, 127 N.W.2d 14; State ex rel. Kowaleski v. District Court of Milwaukee County (1......