From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
State v. Giminski
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
634 N.W.2d 604, 247 Wis. 2d. 750 (2001)
Facts
On July 30, 1998, three United States Secret Service agents, including John A. Hirt, went to the residence of John F. Giminski (defendant) and explained that they were there to seize two vehicles. The agents told Giminski’s daughters, Elva and Ava, to remove the family’s items from one of the vehicles but did not mention the other vehicle to the daughters. Soon after, Elva attempted to leave in the other vehicle. The agents drove after Elva and crashed into the vehicle she was driving. Giminski looked out a window and saw Hirt pulling Elva out of the vehicle by her hair while pointing a gun at her face. Giminski ran outside and grabbed Hirt’s gun. The gun fired, and bullets hit Giminski and Hirt. Giminski was charged with attempted first-degree intentional homicide. At trial, Giminski testified that he did not intend to kill Hirt but that he believed Hirt was going to kill Elva and wanted to defend her. Giminski asked the trial court to instruct the jury on defense of others, arguing that he was justified in using force against Hirt because he reasonably believed that Elva was in danger. The trial court denied Giminski’s request, explaining that it was objectively unreasonable for Giminski to believe that Hirt would have shot Elva. The jury convicted Giminski. Giminski appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schudson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
