On Point blog, page 7 of 15
SCOW: Allowing a substitute expert to testify about forensic testing results doesn’t violate Confrontation Clause
State v. Michael R. Griep, 2015 WI 40, 4/23/15, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity (including briefs)
Opinion testimony by a qualified expert based on data produced by an unavailable forensic lab analyst doesn’t violate a defendant’s right to confrontation if the testifying expert formed an “independent” opinion based on a review of the unavailable analyst’s data.
Medical examiner’s reliance on toxicology report of out-of-state lab violated defendant’s right to confrontation
State v. Jason S. VanDyke, 2015 WI App 30; case activity (including briefs)
In this prosecution for reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, VanDyke’s right to confrontation was violated where the medical examiner relied on the toxicology report of an out-of-state drug testing lab to conclude the victim had died of a heroin overdose, the toxicology report was admitted into evidence as part of the autopsy report, but no witness from the lab was called to testify about the toxicology testing.
If 911 call was “testimonial” for Confrontation Clause purposes, error in admitting it was harmless
State v. Albert Lorenzo Finch, Sr., 2014AP744-CR, District 1, 10/7/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Dodging an issue that has not been addressed in Wisconsin, the court of appeals assumes that even if the admission of the recording of a 911 call violated Finch’s right to confrontation the error was harmless because there was ample other evidence supporting the verdict.
Ohio v. Darius Clark, USSC No. 13-1352, cert. granted 10/2/14
1. Does an individual’s obligation to report suspected child abuse make that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause?
2. Do a child’s out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher’s concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause?
State v. Michael Griep, 2009AP3073-CR, petition for review granted 8/5/14
On review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Was Griep’s right to confront the witnesses against him violated by allowing the supervisor of an unavailable lab analyst to testify to his opinion about the defendant’s BAC based entirely on the report prepared by the unavailable analyst?
Conviction for quadruple homicide at Questions bar affirmed despite possible Sixth Amendment violations
State v. Antonio D. Williams, 2013AP814; 6/3/14; District 1; (not recommended for publication); case activity
This appeal raises a host of issues but the most interesting concern the trial court’s decisions to: (1) prohibit defense counsel from cross-examining the State’s cooperating witnesses, all of whom were testifying in the hopes of receiving reduced sentences for themselves, about the maximum penalties they faced; and (2) allow the State to use a letter police found in an envelope marked “for my lawyer” to impeach Williams’s alibi witness.
Trial court erred in relying on the abrogated “interlocking confession” doctrine to deny severance of co-defendants’ trials
State v. John M. Navigato, 2012AP2108-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
State v. Teddy W. Bieker, 2012AP2693-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court, relying on the district attorney’s assertion of the so-called “interlocking confessions” doctrine, denied Navigato’s and Bieker’s motions to sever their trials on homicide,
Presenting testimony of supervisor of analyst who tested blood sample instead of analyst herself didn’t violate Confrontation Clause
State v. Michael R. Griep, 2014 WI App 25, petition for review granted, 8/5/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 40; case activity
Griep’s right to confront the witnesses against him was not violated by allowing the supervisor of an unavailable lab analyst to testify to his opinion about the defendant’s BAC based entirely on the report prepared by the unavailable analyst.
Admission of toxicology report on which pathologist relied was harmless error
State v. Peter T. Heine, 2014 WI App 32; case activity
Heine was charged with reckless homicide for supplying heroin to a young man who died after using the drug. (¶1). Tranchida, the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, concluded the victim died of a heroin overdose based both on his findings during the autopsy and on a toxicology report, which was prepared by an outside lab.
Federal district court grants habeas relief based on violation of Confrontation Clause; calls Wisconsin court’s harmless error analysis “a sterilized, post-hoc rationalization for upholding the result”
Mark D. Jensen v. James Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013)
Judge William Griesbach of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, has ordered a new trial for Mark Jensen, who was convicted of killing his wife Julie based in part on the use of oral and written statements she made before her death in which she told police she suspected her husband was trying to kill her.