On Point: 7. Defendant's right to testify

State v. Allen Dell Vaughn, 2012 WI App 129 (recommended for publication); case activity

Waiver / Forfeiture of Right, Generally 

Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege; forfeiture is:  (1) the failure to object to something without intending to relinquish that which an objection might have preserved and (2) doing something incompatible with the assertion of a right, ¶21, citing State v.

State v. Joel Joseph Lobermeier, 2012 WI App 77 (recommended for publication); for Lobermeier: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Appellate Procedure – Waiver – Jury Instructions 

Failure to object to a jury instruction amounts to a failure to preserve for review an asserted objection, which must therefore be reviewed in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nonetheless, failure to object to a “material variance”

State v. Daniel E. Krueger, 2011AP571-CR, District 3, 8/2/11 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Krueger: Ana Lyn Babcock; case activity

Prosecutorial failure to disclose a police report containing his statements that “were incriminating and any reasonable prosecutor would have planned on using them at trial” violated Krueger’s right to discovery, ¶23, citing State v. DeLao, 2002 WI 49,

State v. Rickey R. Denson, 2011 WI 70, affirming unpublished summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski; case activity

¶8   A criminal defendant’s constitutional right not to testify is a fundamental right that must be waived knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.  However, we conclude that circuit courts are not required to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to determine whether a defendant is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving his or her right not to testify.  

State v. Calvin Jerome Pirtle, 2011 WI App 89(recommended for publication); for Pirtle: Christopher J. Cherella; case activity

Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph

Pirtle’s failure to object to the police presence allowed them to act on the co-tenant’s consent to a warrantless search under Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006):

¶15      In Randolph,

decision below: summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski;  supreme court news release

Issues (from the news release):

1. Should the constitutional right of a criminal defendant not to testify on his behalf and remain silent at trial be recognized as a fundamental right that can only be waived personally by the defendant with an on the record colloquy?
2. Should the only appropriate remedy, for failure to engage in an on-the-record colloquy regarding the right not to testify at trial,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication) BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Traffic Arrest
Probable cause to believe Broad drove on public roadway, hence to arrest for OWI, where car was found off the road, Broad was in driver’s seat and admitted to being driver, car “was warm and running.”

Right to Testify
Violation of rule requiring contemporaneous colloquy as to waiver of right to testify at trial doesn’t lead to automatic reversal of conviction;

court of appeals decision; for Garcia: Paul M. Ruby

Defendant’s Right to Testify – After-the-Fact Evidentiary Hearing on Required Colloquy
Although a colloquy is required by State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85 before the defense rests without testimony from the defendant, failure to conduct the colloquy doesn’t automatically result in new trial but, rather, supports postconviction evidentiary hearing procedure.

¶14  The supreme court in Weed mandated a simple colloquy for courts to employ when a defendant chooses not to testify at trial. 

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:

¶11. A defendant’s right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Ct. App. 1994). A defendant may, however, waive the right to testify. State v. Wilson, 179 Wis. 2d 660,