State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner v. Ronald W. McCallum, Defendant-Appellant

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that when a circuit court applies the 'reasonable probability of a different outcome' criterion to a recantation-based motion to withdraw a plea, it must ask whether there is a reasonable probability that a jury, looking at both the accusation and the recantation, would have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt — not whether the recantation is more or less credible than the original accusation. The court reaffirmed the rule that recantation testimony must be corroborated by other newly discovered evidence and announced a two-part test: a feasible motive for the initial false statement plus circumstantial guarantees of the recantation's trustworthiness, both of which the defendant met. It affirmed the court of appeals in part but reversed its order granting a new trial, remanding for the circuit court to apply the correct standard because credibility is best judged from the witness's demeanor. Chief Justice Abrahamson concurred in the mandate but wrote separately to urge element-specific standards of review and a prejudicial-error framing of the reasonable-probability inquiry.