Court Opinion

ID: 9740600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:38:13.430068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.089767
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
{on rehearing). The appellant’s brief on rehearing reargues the same issues presented upon appeal and especially the important question of whether the state has the burden of proving the evidence against the defendant was not obtained by means of his testimony given under immunity or whether the defendant has the burden to prove it was. As the court remains divided on this issue, the majority opinion stands. However, what was said as to the insufficiency of the evidence is not to foreclose the defendant from raising the question, or to be deemed res adjudicata of the issue, of whether the testimony he gave under immunity at the John Doe proceeding provided the link for the basis of the present prosecution pending in the county court of Kenosha county if the issue is raised in that proceeding. The language of the opinion is restricted to whether the writ of prohibition should have issued on the facts presented.