On Point blog, page 1 of 11
SCOW holds statistical evidence alone does not violate Haseltine rule
State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2025 WI 21, 6/13/25, reversing COA’s authored, unpublished opinion; case activity
SCOW considers whether an expert witness violated Haseltine‘s anti-vouching rule when she testified that only around one percent of child sexual assault disclosures are false without offering an opinion on whether the victim in this case was telling the truth. A unanimous court overrules Mader and any other court of appeals case that holds statistical evidence alone violates the Haseltine rule.
SCOW grants review of defense win as to vouching
State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision, granted 11/12/24; reversed 6/13/25; case activity
In a case that we correctly identified as SCOW bait, SCOW accepts review of the State’s petition for review asking to modify the substantive law on vouching as applied by COA. The case is also relevant to determining what is “settled law” in assessing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to exclude evidence at refusal hearing; although officer’s statements to defendant during traffic stop were relevant, they were inadmissible when offered through another officer without personal knowledge of statements.
State v. Rodriguez, 2024AP481, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to exclude relevant, but inadmissible, evidence at refusal hearing because witness lacked personal knowledge.
Defense Win! COA issues must-read decision outlining law regarding “vouching” in child sexual assault prosecutions
State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, 5/21/24, District III (not recommended for publication);petition for review granted case activity
Although this defense win is unpublished and therefore nonprecedential, COA’s analysis and synthesis of the law regarding this commonly litigated issue is an important read for litigators considering such claims.
COA affirms and agrees that officer’s violation of sequestration order need not result in new trial
State v. Marqus G. Phillips, 2023AP450, 10/4/23, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
That the Constitution does not guarantee an “error-free trial” is an unnecessary response to a straw man when a defendant seeks a new trial after it is discovered that the second of two state’s witnesses was found to have violated the circuit court’s witness sequestration order. It’s also an easy out where the circuit court’s lack of prejudice determination in denying a mistrial claim is reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review.
Testimony that 99% of sexual assault reports are true improperly vouched for complainant’s credibility, but wasn’t prejudicial
State v. Conrad M. Mader, 2022AP382-CR, District 2, 6/7/23 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Mader was convicted of repeated sexual assault of his stepdaughter. He argues his trial lawyer was ineffective in numerous ways. The court of appeals agrees trial counsel performed deficiently in three respects, but holds trial counsel’s mistakes weren’t prejudicial and therefore Mader isn’t entitled to a new trial.
Circular reasoning upheld as mother testifies about father’s suspected heroin use during TPR trial
N.D. v. E.S., 2022AP1084, District 2, 01/25/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Nancy (N.D.) petitioned to terminate Ed’s (E.D.’s) parental rights on the grounds that he abandoned their daughter, Kim. See Wis. Stat. § 48.415(1). At trial, Ed asserted a “good cause” defense that Nancy prevented him from having contact with Kim, and in response, Nancy was allowed to testify that the reason for her interference was Ed’s “heroin use.” Despite the fact that Nancy had no personal knowledge of Ed’s suspected heroin use, the circuit court ruled, and the court of appeals agrees, that the fact that Ed admitted to being drug tested was sufficient foundation for Nancy’s testimony. As a result, Ed’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to this evidence fails.
Court of Appeals addresses successive postconviction motion, judge’s use of written rather than oral sentencing rationale
State v. Hajji Y. McReynolds, 2022 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)
This decision addresses: 1) the propriety of successive postconviction motions; 2) a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony vouching for the credibility of another witness and to improper character evidence; and 3) the novel issue of the sentencing judge’s use of a written rather than oral explanation of its sentencing rationale under § 973.017(10m)(b).
Defense win: Circuit court erred in preventing impeachment of witness with prior false statement to police
State v. Dennis C. Strong, Jr., 2020AP1197-CR, District 3, 3/8/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In a decision that provides a nice primer about using specific instances of a witness’s to attack the witness’s character for truthfulness § 906.08(2), the court of appeals holds the circuit court erroneously barred Strong from cross examining the complaining witness about a prior false statement she’d made to the police four months earlier in a different case.
Evidence bearing on witness credibility discovered post-trial doesn’t require new CHIPS trial
State v. M.T.W., 2021AP420-FT, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Information that goes to a witness’s character for truthfulness doesn’t meet the standard under § 48.46(1) for newly discovered evidence that warrants a new trial.