Bifurcation is the act of dividing a trial into two parts for various reasons like convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize. Frequently, civil cases are bifurcated into separate liability and damages proceedings. Criminal trials are also often bifurcated into guilt and sentencing phases.
Severance of actions may be allowed in the court's discretion either to permit a separate trial for some of the parties or a separate trial of properly joined causes of action. Usually, severance is requested by a defendant, but a plaintiff will be granted a severance under proper circumstances. The basic reason for granting a severance is that prejudice is likely to result from a joint trial. Severance should be permitted where the defendants' interests are hostile, where the action against them is not based on the same legal liability, or where a joint trial would involve the submission of very complex and abstruse questions to the jury and would materially affect the substantial rights of the parties.
This form is a generic example that may be referred to when preparing such a form for your particular state. It is for illustrative purposes only. Local laws should be consulted to determine any specific requirements for such a form in a particular jurisdiction.
Title: Understanding the Wisconsin Motion to Bifurcate Trials on Subsequent Offenses of Operating under the Influence and Operation without a License keyword: Wisconsin, Motion to Bifurcate Trials, Subsequent Offense, Operating under the Influence, Operation without a License Introduction: In Wisconsin, when individuals face charges of both subsequent offenses of Operating under the Influence (OWN) and Operation without a License (OWL), the option to file a Motion to Bifurcate Trials arises. This strategic approach allows defendants to separate the trials for each offense, ensuring a fair and impartial examination of the charges. This article aims to provide a detailed description of the Wisconsin Motion to Bifurcate Trials on subsequent offenses of OWN and OWL, exploring its purpose, types, and possible implications. 1. Purpose of a Motion to Bifurcate Trials: A Motion to Bifurcate Trials in Wisconsin allows the defendant to request that the court separate the charges of OWN and OWL into two separate trials. The primary goal is to prevent prejudice or confusion that may arise from combining these distinct offenses, ensuring a fair trial for the defendant. 2. Subsequent Offense of Operating under the Influence (OWN): — When an individual commits a subsequent OWN offense in Wisconsin, it means they have previously been convicted of at least one OWN. — SubsequenOWNWI offenses carry more severe penalties, with increased fines, longer license revocations, and possible imprisonment. — By bifurcating the trial, defendants can focus on building a strong defense specific to the OWN charge, minimizing potential influence from the OWL charge. 3. Operation without a License (OWL): — WhilOWNWI refers to driving under the influence, OWL involves driving without a valid driver's license or with a suspended/revoked license. — OWL offenses may result in fines, license suspensions, revocations, and, in some cases, imprisonment. — Separating OWfrownedWI charges via bifurcation allows defendants to argue their case separately, avoiding any unwarranted prejudice that could arise if the charges were combined. Types of Wisconsin Motion to Bifurcate Trials on Subsequent Offenses: a. Full Bifurcation: — This type completely separates the trials, allowing the defendant to face one trial for the subsequent OWN offense and another trial for the OWL offense. — Each trial is conducted independently, offering a clearer focus on each offense and reducing any potential confusion. b. Partial Bifurcation: — In certain cases, the court may agree to partial bifurcation, where separate juries are used to determine guilt for each offense. — Each jury examines the evidence and reaches a verdict on the respective offense independently. — Partial bifurcation still achieves the goal of minimizing prejudice and confusion, albeit not as rigidly as with full bifurcation. Conclusion: A Wisconsin Motion to Bifurcate Trials on subsequent offenses of OWN and OWL serves as a vital tool in ensuring fair and impartial trials for individuals charged with these offenses. By requesting a bifurcation, defendants can separate their trials, focusing on building strong defenses, and avoiding prejudice or confusion that could arise from combining different offenses. Whether opting for a full or partial bifurcation, defendants can navigate the legal process more effectively, increasing their chances of a fair outcome.
