On Point blog, page 5 of 12
Counsel’s failure to object to hearsay and opinion evidence was not ineffective
State v. B.H., 2016AP892-893, District 1, 12/28/16 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication)
B.H.’s twins were taken from her due to a report of violence between her and their father. The trial court found that she had failed to meet the conditions for their return and to assume parental responsibility. B.H. argues that those findings rest upon inadmissible hearsay in the form of testimony from the foster mother and from a social worker and in the form of a letter from the Bureau. B.H. asserts that trial counsel’s failure to object to this evidence amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Defense experts’ testimony about possible blood test errors too speculative to be admitted
State v. Ali Garba, 2015AP1243-CR, District 2, 10/5/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Garba wanted to present testimony from two expert witnesses about possible reliability problems with the gas chromatography tests of his blood, but the circuit court wouldn’t let him. The court of appeals holds the circuit court properly exercised its discretion and rejects Garba’s claim the ruling violated his right to present a defense.
Toxicologist could give opinion about impairment
State v. Lory F. Kerk, 2015AP2608-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court didn’t err in allowing the state to elicit testimony from its expert toxicologist that Kerk was impaired by the amount of alcohol and prescription drugs found in her blood.
TPR court didn’t err in admitting children’s hearsay statements or expert “bonding” testimony
State v. D.L., 2016AP735 & 2016AP736, District 1, 8/18/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court didn’t err in admitting multiple hearsay statements made by D.L.’s children about her treatment of them or in admitting expert testimony about whether D.L. had a “strong bond” or “positive and healthy relationships” with her children.
Circuit court erred in excluding expert testimony on Daubert grounds
Unity Bayer v. Brian D. Dobbins, M.D., 2016 WI App 65; case activity (including briefs)
We note this decision in a civil case because it involves the application of the Daubert test, a still relatively undeveloped area of law, and may assist practitioners in making arguments for (or against) the admission of expert evidence.
Failure to object precludes Daubert analysis; expert on cell phone tracking per se admissible
State v. Robert Lavern Cameron, 2016 WI App 54; case activity (including briefs)
This decision feels like an encounter with a swarm of mosquitoes on a pleasant summer evening. But because it is recommended for publication, you can’t just swat it away. Indeed, the court of appeals’ analysis of the issues will leave you reaching for a bottle of the calamine lotion.
Privilege re: desire to shoot victim waived by statement of desire to shoot self
State v. Daniel L. Schmidt, 2016 WI App 45; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects three challenges to Schmidt’s jury-trial conviction of two homicides.
A Daubert update
Lawyers tracking how Wisconsin’s appellate courts are interpreting Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1), governing the admissibility of expert testimony, might be interested in this development. Seifert v. Balnik, the first Daubert case to reach SCOW was on track to be decided this term. It was twice listed for, and twice removed from, the oral argument schedule. According to the clerk’s office, SCOW has finished oral arguments for this term. The argument in Seifert has been pushed off to next term.
Drug recognition evaluator passes Daubert test for admissibility of expert testimony
State v. Andrew G. Chitwood, 2016 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)
In theory, Wisconsin’s new test for the admissibility of expert testimony “is flexible but has teeth.” State v. Giese, ¶19. In practice, it’s flexible and has dentures. Literally every Daubert challenge litigated on appeal since Wis. Stat. §907.02 became effective has failed. The court of appeals has held that expert testimony regarding the retrograde extrapolation of a person’s blood alcohol concentration passes Daubert (See Giese). So does a doctor’s testimony based solely on his personal experience with prenatal and delivery case (see Seifert). So does a social worker’s testimony based solely on her observations of behavior in child abuse victims (see Smith). And now with Chitwood so does expert testimony by a drug recognition evaluator.
State v. Stanley J. Maday, Jr., 2015AP366-CR, petition for review granted 2/11/16
Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (copied from the State’s petition for review):
No witness, expert or otherwise, may give an opinion at a trial that another mentally and physically competent witness is telling the truth. Here, the social worker who interviewed a child regarding her claim that she had been sexually assaulted testified that there was no indication that the child had been coached and no indication that the child was not being honest during the interview. Did the social worker’s testimony constitute a prohibited opinion that, during this interview, the child was telling the truth?