597 (1973)). Similarly, "as a matter of judicial administration,” the Wisconsin supreme court has imposed the requirement that "a circuit court in a criminal case must advise the defendant that the court cannot accept a jury verdict that is not agreed to by each member of the jury.” State v. Resio, 148 Wis.2d 687, 436 N.W.2d 603, 607 (1989); see State v. Anderson, 249 Wis.2d 586, 638 N.W.2d 301, 306 (2002) (affirming this requirement). 20 . The jury waiver advisement could be grounded in this court's supervisory powers, and accordingly, would be prospective in effect. See State v. Cabagbag, 127 Hawai'i 302, 316, 277 P.3d 1027, 1042 (2012) (applying this court’s holding regarding eyewitness instructions on a prospective basis); see also Tachibana, 79 Hawai'i at 238, 900 P.2d at 1305 (<HOLDING>); Lewis, 94 Hawai'i at 297, 12 P.3d at 1238
holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict holding that the act applies prospectively to complaints filed after its effective date holding new statute applicable only prospectively holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective holding that the colloquy requirement established  shall only apply prospectively to cases in which the trial is not completed until after the date of the decision