On Point blog, page 26 of 29
Self-Incrimination – Impeachment with Post-Miranda Silence – Generally: Partial Exercise of Rights
State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed
For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr.
Issue/Holding:
¶16 Building on footnote 11 in Doyle, courts have recognized situations in which it is not a violation of due process for the prosecutor to elicit on cross-examination the fact of the defendant’s post- Miranda silence for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony about his or her interactions with the police after the arrest.
Waiver of Issue: Judicial Communications with Jury during deliberations – Defendant’s Right to Presence
State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2006 WI 77, reversing 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel
Issue/Holding:
¶36 The parties agree with the court of appeals that the circuit court’s communications with the jury outside the presence of the defendant is error, violating the defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to be present. We agree with the parties.…
¶63 (W)hatever the requirement for an accused’s waiver of the right to be present when a circuit court communicates with the jury,
Due Process – Right to Present Defense – Expert Testimony, Identification Procedure
State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman
Issue/Holding:
¶27 In St. George, this court held that the circuit court’s exclusion of testimony of a defense expert about the victim’s recantation, and about interview techniques particular to child sexual assault cases, unconstitutionally deprived the defendant of his right to present a defense.
Due Process – Exculpatory Evidence, Failure to Disclose – Impeachment: Not Material, Where Cumulative
State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 (prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding: Failure to disclose evidence that a prosecution witness had falsely implicated Rockette in another homicide did not violate Brady, because it would not have had an impact on the outcome of the trial:
¶41 Evidence of impeachment is material if the witness whose testimony is attacked “supplied the only evidence linking the defendant(s) to the crime,” United States v.
Due Process – Identifcation Procedure – Show-up – “Accidental” Encounter
State v. Brian Hibl, 2006 WI 52, reversing 2005 WI App 228
For Hibl: Joel H. Rosenthal
Issue: Whether an identification resulting from an “accidental” encounter between witness and defendant in a courthouse hallway immediately before trial is suppressible, in the absence of any evidence that this incident involved a law enforcement procedure directed at obtaining an identification.
Holding:
¶31 For the reasons stated below,
Due Process – Right to Present Defense – Generally: Limited to Relevant Evidence
State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶33 The Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause right to present a defense requires that a defendant be allowed to introduce relevant evidence, subject to reasonable restrictions. …
¶34 The right to present a defense does not require that a defendant be allowed to present irrelevant evidence.
Due Process – Right to Present Defense – Prosecution Witness’s Attempts to Curry Favor in Other Cases – Cumulative to Credibility
State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 ( prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding: Excluding evidence that in other, unrelated instances a witness had lied to the police in an attempt to curry favor in his own criminal cases did violate Rockette’s right to present a defense,
Due Process – Presumptions, Generally
State v. Eric Benjamin Gardner, 2006 WI App 92
For Gardner: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶9 In addressing this issue, it is first necessary to define what a presumption is and when a presumption denies a criminal defendant due process. A presumption allows a “trier of fact to determine the existence of an element of the crime–that is, an ‘ultimate’ or ‘elemental’ fact–from the existence of one or more ‘evidentiary’ or ‘basic’ facts.” Ulster County Court v.
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09 – Sufficiency of Notice of Element of “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”
State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06
For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue: Whether the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” in § 942.09 is unconstitutionally vague, where the conduct involved videotaping women in a second-floor bathroom in their own house.
Holding:
¶39 However, this court and the supreme court have already concluded in several different contexts that the term “reasonable” does not render a statute unconstitutionally vague.
Due Process – Identification Procedure – Show-up
State v. Tyrone L. Dubose, 2005 WI 126
For Dubose: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the test for admissibility of a pretrial showup should be changed. (“A ‘showup’ is an out-of-court pretrial identification procedure in which a suspect is presented singly to a witness for identification purposes.” ¶1, n. 1, quoting State v. Wolverton, 193 Wis. 2d 234,