I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want our government to be charging people based on a count being "probably" transactionally related… 

 

Here are the specifics are of why it should not be able to be considered transactionally related:

 

In State v. Burke in 1990, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that counts should be considered transactionally related (i.e. "not wholly unrelated") based on the following 7 criteria:

1. Parties involved

2. Witnesses involved

3. Geographical proximity

4. Time

5. Physical evidence

6. Motive

7. Intent

 

In the case of State v. Burke, all 7 criteria were clearly matched to all 4 counts in question in that case.

 

Then in 1993, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided State v. Richer where the decision included language stating,

 

"the presence or absence of one or more of the seven factors would not control the court's decision. Rather, the state asserts, each serves to guide the court's review of the district attorney's exercise of authority… The seven factors form a general framework for determining whether counts can be added to the information and yet meet the goals of the preliminary hearing."

 

The case's ruling was that Mr. Richer's charges of drug sales of the same nature that were 9 days apart were not transactionally related based on the consideration of these 7 criteria. 

 

The decision was made despite"two charges which rely in part on proof of the same elements and the same parties may be otherwise completely unrelated to each other." 

 

In other words, when the court used the 7 criteria to evaluate whether or not two of the same type of crimes with the same parties involved were deemed not transactionally related. 

 

How much more "wholly unrelated" (i.e. not "transactionally related") is Martell's charge? 

 

• The witnesses were different 

• The victim(s) were different

• The geographical location was different

• The crime itself was different (armed robbery vs. burglary)

• The time was different

• The physical evidence was different

• Even the motive and intent could be argued to be different.

​

In short, there is essentially no way to argue that Martell's charge/count was "as transactionally related" as the two counts in question in State v. Richer, which were declared unrelated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

 

Therefore, the State should not have allowed Martell's charge to proceed.