On Point: 6. Particular types of evidence

United States v. Antonio West, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-2514, 12/30/15

The trial court erroneously excluded expert evidence that West sought to admit regarding factors that made him susceptible to making an unreliable confession to a crime.

State v. Todd J. Giese, 2014 WI App 92; case activity

Expert testimony regarding retrograde extrapolation of Giese’s blood alcohol concentration is admissible under new version of § 907.02(1) despite the fact some experts doubt its reliability because it was the product of reliable principles and methods and based upon sufficient facts and data.

State v. Amos L. Small, 2013 WI App 117; case activity

Right to a public trial

The circuit court appropriately excluded a person from the courtroom under State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, after the prosecutor asserted the had threatened a state’s witness after her testimony. (¶9). While Small’s lawyer objected to the exclusion of the person on the grounds it violated Small’s right to a public trial and was based on a hearsay statement,

City of Port Washington v. David A. Thompson, 2012AP2500, District 2, 6/26/13; court of appeals opinion (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court did not err in allowing Hackworthy, the state’s chemical test expert, to give her opinion that Thompson’s BAC at the time of driving was 0.15 based on average alcohol elimination rates and the results of a blood test taken about an hour after driving (with a result of 0.15) and a breath test taken about two hours after driving (with a result of 0.11).

State v. Craig A. Swope, 2008 WI App 175
For Swope: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether “death scene” analysis from an FBI agent was admissible to establish cause of simultaneous death of two elderly individuals found dead in their home.

Holding:

¶25      The general field of crime scene analysis has been recognized as being a body of specialized knowledge. United State v.

State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously admitted an attorney’s expert opinion testimony that LaCount had engaged in a securities transaction.

Holding:

¶19 As noted previously, appellate courts use the deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard when reviewing a circuit court’s decision to admit expert testimony.

State v. Bryan James Krueger, 2008 WI App 162
For Krueger: Bradley J. Lochowicz

Issue/Holding:

¶15      Here, Mason was asked whether she had formed an opinion as to whether or not S.B. “was the product of any suggestibility or any coaching.” … Signs of coaching or suggestion could fall into the realm of knowledge that is outside that of a lay-person jury. [10]

¶16      However,

State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman

Issue/Holding: Trial court’s refusal to admit expert testimony on factors influencing witness’s ability to identify a stranger during a lineup procedure, in particular the distorting effect of a simultaneous as opposed to sequential procedure, was not an erroneous exercise of discretion:

¶15     In 2002,

State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs

Issue/Holding: Where the State’s expert witness never interviewed the victim (nor viewed a videotape of the victim’s statement), the defendant wasn’t entitled to a psychological examination of the victim pursuant to State v. Maday, 179 Wis. 2d 346, 359-60, 507 N.W.2d 365 (Ct. App. 1993), ¶27.

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue/Holding: Proof of the controlled substance is sufficient where a “presumptive” test is followed by a “confirmatory” one (State v. Dye, 215 Wis. 2d 281, 572 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1997), followed), with the PDR being used to establish the presumption:

¶42      Here,