The United States Supreme Court reversed. They ruled that the accused's First Amendment free speech rights were not violated by application of the penalty-enhancement statue because: 1) motive played the same role under the penalty-enhancement statue as it did under federal and state anti discrimination laws, which the Supreme Court had upheld; 2) the statue was aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment; 3) the state's desire to redress individual and social harm provided an adequate explanation for penalty-enhancement and went beyond mere disagreement with the offenders beliefs; 4) the prospect of someone suppressing their beliefs for fear that speaking them could be used in evidence against them if they committed a serious criminal offense was too speculative an hypothesis to support a claim that the statue chilled free speech; 5) the First Amendment did not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime to prove motive or intent.
To see the entire Wisconsin v. Mitchell decision.
If you are done with this case and wish to examine a new case, choose home.
If you are finished you can return to the Project LEGAL Homepage.