On Point: F. Witnesses, Ch. 906

State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48
For Olson: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination of a principal State’s witness was impermissibly curtailed when the trial court abruptly ended inquiry into whether the witness had threatened to cause the defendant (her ex-husband) “trouble” following his remarriage, where:

• The witness testified only with the aid of a translator and had obvious difficulty answering questions (“a witness’s comprehension affects our analysis of whether a trial court can cut-off cross-examination prematurely.

State v. Walter T. Missouri, 2006 WI App 74
For Missouri: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue: Whether the defense should have been allowed to cross-examine the arresting officer about an instance of misconduct between the officer and a third party which was assertedly very similar to the defense theory that the officer mistreated the defendant and planted evidence on him.

Holding:

¶20      Moreover, WIS.

State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the defendant’s brother testified that the non-testifying complainant had recanted, the prosecution could impeach the brother with the possibility that the complainant was motivated by fear due to the brother’s gang affiliation, ¶31: “A witness’s motive (whether testifying ‘live’ or by admission of his or her out-of-court assertions) is never collateral, 

State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48
For Olson: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding:

¶11      Inquiry into a witness’s bias is always material and relevant. State v. Williamson, 84 Wis. 2d 370, 383, 267 N.W.2d 337, 343 (1978) (bias and improper motive of witness are never collateral). John Henry Wigmore has characterized cross-examination as “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 5 Wigmore,

State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin

Issue/Holding:

¶39 … (A)ppellate courts are sensitive to judicial intervention by a trial judge in the form of judicial witnesses and judicial questioning ….

¶40 … We have always recognized judicial authority to call and interrogate witnesses but simultaneously admonished caution against judicial abuse.

State v. Victor K. Johnson, 2004 WI 94, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals

Issue: Whether the State impermissibly cross-examined the defendant about the truthfulness of another witness.

Holding:

¶2. We conclude that the purpose and effect of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Johnson was to impeach Johnson’s credibility, not to bolster the credibility of another witness, because both Johnson and the other witness were testifying to their personal observations about the same events.

State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove

Issue/Holding:

¶44. The State charged Gundy as an accomplice to Ross’s criminal activity. Gundy was arrested in Maryland, and brought back to Milwaukee where he was held in custody. Ross contends that pursuant to a plea agreement, Gundy was released from custody, and secured leniency in return for his testimony against Ross.

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed, 2004 WI 33
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶24. Wisconsin Stat. § 906.09 permits the admission of prior convictions for impeachment purposes. (See text of statute at ¶9.) The statute reflects the presumption that “a person who has been convicted of a crime is less likely to be a truthful witness than a person who has not been convicted.” 

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565; habeas denied, Samuel v. Frank, 525 F. 3d 566 (7th Cir 2008)
For Samuel: Robert A. Henak

Issue/Holding:

¶30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product of coercion,

State v. Andre Bolden, 2003 WI App 155, PFR filed 7/2/03
For Bolden: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding: A defendant may be asked whether another witness offering contradicting testimony “is lying,” ¶11.

The seminal case is State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984): one witness may not give an opinion as to whether another witness is telling the truth.