On Point: 6. Confrontation, 6th Am.

State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense  impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.

In their dissents from an order denying cert, two justices leave a trail of breadcrumbs for litigators frustrated by the discordant state of the law with respect to the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause.

Christopher Roalson v. Jon Noble, No. 22-2833, 8/28/24

The Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief, applying pre-Smith law on the confrontation clause, as the underlying WI COA decision dates back to 2014. The Court concludes that the rule the COA applied–“one expert cannot act as a mere conduit for the opinion of another” and must instead “render[] her own expert opinion”–did not contradict Melendez-Diaz or Bullcoming, the established precedent at the time.

Smith v. Arizona, USSC No. 22-899, 6/21/2024, vacating and remanding Arizona v. Smith, No. 1CA-CR 21-0451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022) (unreported); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

SCOTUS unanimously holds that expert witness testimony restating an absent lab analyst’s factual assertions to support his or her own opinion is hearsay. However, the Court declined to address the second part of the Confrontation Clause test, whether the underlying evidence was testimonial, as the issue was undeveloped in this case.

State v. Antonio G. Ramirez, Jr., 2021AP1590, 11/15/23, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

There are some serious unresolved confrontation questions around statements alleged victims make in settings involving both medical treatment and criminal investigation: often, during a police-instigated physical examination after an alleged physical or sexual assault. Here, despite turning out a 52-page, recommended-for-publication opinion, the court of appeals fails meaningfully to address any.

Smith v. Arizona, U.S.S.C. No. 22-899, cert. granted 9/29/23; Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

Question presented:

Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.

Samia v. United States, USSC No. 22-196, 143 S. Ct. 2004, June 23, 2023, affirming U.S. v. Hunter, et al., Nos. 18-3074-cr, 18-3489-cr, 19-790-cr (2nd Cir. Apr. 20, 2022) (not reported); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

A majority of the Supreme Court affirms the use of a confession of one non-testifying co-defendant against another defendant, and its rationale shows, in the words of the dissenters, that the majority thinks the rule in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), “should go.” (Kagan dissent at 10; Jackson dissent at 1).

State v. Alvin James Jemison, Jr., 2021AP2207-CR, 7/18/23, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After a jury trial, Jemison was convicted of second-degree sexual assault of an unconscious person (Teresa) as a repeater – serious sex crime and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release to extended supervision. See Wis. Stat. § 939.618(2)(b). After the circuit court denied his postconviction motion without a Machner hearing, Jemison raised three claims on appeal: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the completed sexual intercourse charge, (2) the court erred in its admission of other acts evidence, and (3) the court erroneously denied his claims without an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals rejects each of Jemison’s claims and affirms.

Rock Count v. H.V., 2022AP1585-FT, 1/20/23, District 4; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

This is an appeal from a ch. 51 recommitment under the 2nd standard– dangerousness to others. H.V.’s main argument was that the circuit court erroneously relied on hearsay to find that he is dangerous when not committed. The court of appeals disagreed and further found the county’s evidence sufficient to support the commitment.

There’s an interesting petition for writ of certiorari on this issue pending in SCOTUS. As this post from the Confrontation Blog explains: “The question is whether, or in what circumstances, the testimony of a prosecution witness at a preliminary hearing may be used at trial if the witness is then unavailable.  This is an issue on which the Supreme Court has not given any guidance since Crawford, and the petition ably shows that the lower courts are in clear dispute.”