# Scott Mattes v. John R. Gagnon, Superintendent, and Bronson C. Lafollette, Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · February 16, 1983 · 700 F.2d 1096

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470323

## Case

- **Full name:** Scott MATTES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John R. GAGNON, Superintendent, and Bronson C. LaFollette, Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** February 16, 1983
- **Citations:** 700 F.2d 1096; 12 Fed. R. Serv. 977; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30467
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moran
- **Judges:** Wood, Posner, Moran
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470323

## Opinion text

MORAN, District Judge,
concurring.
While I agree with Judge Wood’s analysis, particularly since the disputed evidence was equally consistent with the defendant’s theory of the case, I add but one comment respecting the contested instruction. Instructions are often selected during instruction conferences, from those which have survived on appeal. Substantially similar “presumption” instructions have now survived constitutional attack in Pigee v. Israel, 670 F.2d 690 (7th Cir.1982) and, accordingly, here. The conclusion that they do not offend the Constitution is, however, solely a conclusion that they may be permissible, not that they are desirable. One would hope that trial courts will heed the admonition to trial judges in Pigee v. Israel, supra, at p. 696 , that they “would be wise in the future to avoid ‘presumption’ language in this area, in favor of language pointing out inferences which can permissibly be drawn from conduct and emphasis on the prosecution’s burden at all times to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9470323. Public record. Not legal advice.