| Court: | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Davis was prohibited by statute from having an elected and an appointed job, or something like that. Through a twisty path of circumstances, he came to have one, though, even though the corporate counsel and the DA both advised that this would be OK. Then a political adversary swore out a criminal complaint against him. |
| Posture: | Convicted at trial |
| Issue: | If governmental counsel gives advice on the area they're statutorily required to, can that be an excuse for errors of law? |
| Holding: | Yes. Reversed, and ordered to dismiss. |
| Rule: | In general, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If that were not the case, then lawyers would be an authority above the statutes. |
| Reasoning: | this is different from Hopkins (counsel there was speaking on an area that was optional). Ignorance of the law is not an excuse generally, but to prosecute people on the basis of errors in the opinion of those who are supposed to be the authorities on such matters seems like a violation of fundamental fairness. |
| Dicta: | |