On Point blog, page 2 of 2
Judicial Estoppel Bar to Argument — Complete Adoption of Party’s Position Required
State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth
Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel requires that the party’s position be completely adopted. (Johnson therefore not estopped from challenging restitution amount he agreed to below because he also asked for probation but was given some jail time.) ¶24.
Judicial Estoppel Bar to Argument — Acceptance of Curative Instruction Bars Appellate Challenge to Its Efficacy
State v. Jonathan J. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App 74, PFR filed 3/22/02
For English-Lancaster: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether defendant is judicially estopped from appellate challenge to the efficacy of a curative instruction, where he: requested such an instruction, expressed approval of it when it was given, and failed to move for mistrial.
Holding:
¶22. This is classic judicial estoppel.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Judicial Estoppel Bar to Arguing
State v. Michael Johnson, 2001 WI App 105
For Johnson: David R. Karpe
Issue: Whether defendant’s partially successful trial strategy of defending against two counts of possession of intent to deliver of claiming personal use on one count and denial of any knowledge of the substance in the second count judicially estopped him from arguing on appeal that the two counts are multiplicitous.
Holding:
¶10.
Judicial Estoppel – Reliance on Party’s Position
State Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg
Holding: Kenyon’s change in position from trial to appeal doesn’t fall within estoppel doctrine, because neither prosecution nor trial court relied on the changed position.
Judicial Estoppel: Challenge to Favorable Ruling
State v. Darcy N.K., 218 Wis. 2d 640, 581 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Darcy K.: Kenneth L. Lund, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: A party who prevailed at the trial level is judicially estopped, on appeal, from challenging the trial court’s favorable action taken at his or her own request.
Sentence Modification: Judicial Estoppel Bar — Agreement to Recommended Sentence
Scott A. Magnuson, 220 Wis. 2d 468, 583 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Magnuson: T. Gregory Amann
Issue/Holding:
We conclude that Magnuson is judicially estopped from asserting that the two twelve-year concurrent sentences are excessive. Although Magnuson contends he did not agree to the recommended sentence, the record belies his claim. Magnuson’s probation officer set forth the recommendation in the presentence investigation report (PSI).