On Point: F. Witnesses, Ch. 906

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, 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. Tito J. Long, 2002 WI App 114, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Long: Ann T. Bowe

Issue/Holding: Evidence of gang affiliation is admissible (if state shows that defendant in fact was affiliated) to show witness’ bias, per United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 52 (1984). ¶¶17-19.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed

For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an expert witness’s testimony should have been struck retrospectively when it became known, after the proceeding had concluded, that he had lied about his credentials and background, and had committed misconduct, causing him to be fired.

Holding: “¶33. We cannot conclude that the circuit court’s refusal to strike Thomalla’s testimony was improper.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue:: Whether an expert witness’s testimony should have been struck retrospectively when it became known, after the proceeding had concluded, that he had lied about his credentials and background.

Holding:

¶33. We cannot conclude that the circuit court’s refusal to strike Thomalla’s testimony was improper.

State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed
For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding:

¶31. The privilege against self-incrimination is guaranteed by art. I, § 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution and by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998). The use of a defendant’s silence for impeachment purposes has been long decided.

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the prosecutor properly cross-examined an alibi witness as to what the defendant had told him about his prior offense.

Holding:

¶21. Further, even if the 1992 conviction could have been properly admitted, using this evidence on cross-examination was improper. Other acts evidence is admitted for a specific purpose.

State v. Aaron Evans, 2000 WI App 178, 238 Wis.2d 411, 617 N.W.2d 220

For Evans: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in preventing a DNA expert from sitting at counsel table.

Holding: “|10 We are satisfied that, on this record, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Evans’s request that Friedman be exempted from the sequestration order.

State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753

For Scott: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether a defense witness was properly impeached with evidence that he was serving life in prison with no prospect for parole.

Holding: The witness’s attempt to admit the crimes and exonerate the defendant would have misled the jury absent revelation of his functional immunity stemming from his parole status: “where no practical,

State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753
For Scott: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether a defense witness was properly impeached with evidence that he was serving life in prison with no prospect for parole.

Holding: The witness’s attempt to admit the crimes and exonerate the defendant would have misled the jury absent revelation of his functional immunity stemming from his parole status: “where no practical,

State v. David C. Tutlewski, 231 Wis.2d 379, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tutlewski: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether one witness’s opinion that state’s witnesses were incapable of lying invaded the jury’s province.

Holding: This testimony violated the rule that one witness may not testify to the credibility of another witness.

The alleged sexual assault victim and her roommate are cognitively disabled.