On Point: A. Generally

State v. Matthew Owen Hoff, Jr., 2011AP2096-CR, District 3, 6/26/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

¶19      Here, before arresting Hoff, Gostovich observed him sleeping behind the wheel of a running car that was parked horizontally against the vertical parking stalls.  Hoff did not awake to Gostovich’s shouting or knocking.  When he finally awoke, he was disorientated and confused, and that disorientation “did not dissipate.”  Hoff’s speech was slowed,

Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, 6/18/12, affirming People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125, 939 N.E. 268

A split Court (4-1-4) upholds against Confrontation objection, admissibility of expert testimony that a DNA profile, produced by a different lab, matched Williams’ profile. Because the rationale favoring admissibility doesn’t earn a clear majority of votes, the opinion should be approached with the following principle in mind, 

Hardy v. Irving L. Cross, USSC No. 11-74, 12/12/11, reversing Cross v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 09-1666

The Seventh Circuit grant of habeas relief, on the ground “the state failed to demonstrate that it employed good faith efforts to locate the complainant” before declaring her “unavailable” and allowing her prior testimony to be read to the jury, is reversed:

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of1996 (AEDPA),

State v. Richard Dean Boyer, 2011AP305-CR, District 1, 8/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Boyer: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

OWI trial, where the chemist who analyzed the blood sample testified, but the person who drew the sample didn’t: the court rejects Boyer’s argument that his right to confrontation was violated by his inability to cross-examine the person who drew the blood.

State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2011 WI 73, reversing unpublished COA decision; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; case activity

Although the State’s theory of motive was that Rhodes intentionally shot and killed the victim in retaliation for beating Rhodes’ sister the day before, the trial court reasonably precluded cross-examination of the sister on a prior instance where the victim severely beat her without response from Rhodes.

On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of Bullcoming v. New Mexico by Daniel D. Blinka, Professor of Law, Marquette University of Virginia. (Cross-posted at Marquette.)  Professor Brandon L. Garrett, Virginia, also has a Guest Post on Bullcoming. Feel free to submit comments in the box at the end of the Post.

Note that issues discussed in these posts will be further refined by the recent grant of certiorari in Williams v.

On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of Bullcoming v. New Mexico by Brandon L. Garrett, Professor of Law, University of Virginia. (Cross-posted at ACS. On Point has made a minor editing change in the first sentence, to add the date of decision.) Professor Garret has previously guest-posted on DNA and habeas procedure.  Professor Daniel D. Blinka, Marquette,

Docket

Decision below: People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. S. Ct. No. 107550)

Question Presented (by the Court):

Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause.

Hmm. Didn’t the Court just get done resolving this issue?

Donald Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, 6/23/11

The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement.

State v. Marvin L. Beauchamp, 2011 WI 27, affirming 2010 WI App 42; for Beauchamp: Craig S. Powell; case activity

Confrontation – Dying Declaration, § 908.045(3)

¶34  We therefore, like every state court that has considered the dying declaration exception since Crawford, take a position consistent with the language of Crawford and Giles and decline to hold that the constitutional right to confront witnesses is violated by the admission of statements under the dying declaration hearsay exception.