On Point: 13. Due Process

State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: A defendant has a “fundamental” constitutional right to testify on his or her own behalf. ¶39.

¶43. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a criminal defendant is waiving his or her right to testify, a circuit court should conduct an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant outside the presence of the jury.

State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2003 WI App 168, affirmed, 2004 WI 70, ¶¶42-47
For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella
Amici: Keith A. Findley, John T. Savee, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL

Issue/Holding: The defendant’s right to testify does not include a right to testify falsely, Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986):

¶37.

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶32. Schaefer claims that by allowing conviction for possession of child pornography when a defendant “reasonably should know” that the child depicted is under eighteen years of age, Wis. Stat. § 948.12 omits a scienter requirement for the offense. He contends that in expressing the intent element regarding the minority of the depicted child in the pornographic materials as “knows or reasonably should know,”

State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 2002 WI 50, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For St. George: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “Was the circuit court’s exclusion of the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness an erroneous exercise of discretion, or alternatively, a deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence, as the defendant asserted?” ¶2

Holding: The trial court’s rejection of the expert was based on his lack of extensive experience in the area;

State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 2002 WI 50, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision

For St. George: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “Was the circuit court’s exclusion of the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness an erroneous exercise of discretion, or alternatively, a deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence, as the defendant asserted?” ¶2

Holding: The trial court’s rejection of the expert was based on his lack of extensive experience in the area;

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565

For Samuel: Robert A. Henak

Issue/Holding: Ҧ30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product of coercion, the police misconduct must be more than that set forth in Clappes.

State Charles A. Dunlap, 2002 WI 19, reversing, 2000 WI App 251, 239 Wis. 2d 423, 620 N.W.2d 398
For Dunlap: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “(W)hether a defendant who is charged with sexual assault should be allowed to present evidence of sexual behavior exhibited by the child complainant prior to the alleged assault, even though the evidence would normally be barred by the rape shield law,

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App 98, PFR filed 4/23/02
For Chu: Andrew Shaw

Issue: Whether defendant was denied his right to exculpatory evidence when the state failed to disclose that a prosecution witness had received favorable treatment in another case.

Holding:

¶37. As the State notes, prosecutions that end in dismissal and ordinance violations are not admissible to impeach a witness because they are not evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime.”

State v. James D. Miller, 2002 WI App 197, PFR filed 8/2/02
For Miller: Matthew H. Huppertz, Craig Kuhary, Daniel P. Fay

Issue/Holding: The charging period of March 1, 1989, to March 31, 1993, was not too expansive to provide opportunity to prepare a defense, largely because of the victim’s youthfulness and vulnerable relationship (patient-therapist) to defendant, ¶31; and because the alleged offenses occurred during therapy sessions,

State v. Jerry L. Parker,  2002 WI App 159, PFR filed 5/20/02
For Parker: William Christopher Rose

Issue: Whether posttrial destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence (taped drug transaction) requires new trial.

Holding:

¶14. A defendant’s due process rights are violated by the destruction of evidence (1) if the evidence destroyed is apparently exculpatory and of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means;