On Point blog, page 9 of 11
Cross-examination — Bias — Interplay with Fifth Amendment
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding:A line of inquiry that suggests potential bias is relevant; however, the witness’s “real and appreciable apprehension” of self-incrimination trumps the right of confrontation. In such an instance it may be necessary to prevent the witness from testifying or to strike portions of his or her testimony. ¶¶51-52. (No error found here,
Cross-examination — Bias — Pending Charges
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.
Sequestration — Prosecutor Talking to Witness During Break
State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold
Issue/Holding:
¶40. Green contends that the prosecutor, not the witness, violated the sequestration order by conversing with the witness during trial…. Green has not provided any support for the contention that a prosecutor violates a sequestration order by merely talking to his or her witnesses.
Involuntary Statement — Test
State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565
For Samuel: Robert A. Henak
Issue/Holding: Ҧ30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product of coercion, the police misconduct must be more than that set forth in Clappes.
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Prior Juvenile Offense — Probative Value
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue: Whether evidence that the defendant committed a burglary at the age of 13 was admissible as extrinsic evidence to impeach his testimonial denial, on cross-examination, of intent to steal.
Holding: § 906.08(2) expressly prohibits using extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to attack a witness’s credibility,
Witness – Impeachment — Pending Charges
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Holding: A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.
Character — Extrinsic Proof, § 906.08(2)
State v. Troy D. Moore, 2002 WI App 245
For Moore: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Extrinsic evidence offered by the state solely to bolster a witness’s credibility, by showing that he had provided reliable information leading to the arrests of other drug dealers, violated § 906.08(2). ¶15. (Note: the court holds open the question of whether such evidence might be admissible under § 904.04(2).
Expert Witness – Comment On Truthfulness of Another Witness
State v. Carlos R. Delgado, 2002 WI App 38
For Delgado: Richard D. Martin, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶8. After reviewing these cases, we can discern some general rules: (1) an expert witness can offer opinion testimony only if it complies with Wis. Stat. § 907.02; (2) the testimony can include opinions regarding symptomatology common to child sexual assault victims; (3) the testimony can include a description of the symptoms exhibited by the victims;
Prior Inconsistent Statement — Foundational Requirement, §§ 906.11(1), 906.13(2)(a)2
State v. Zebelum Smith, 2002 WI App 118, PFR filed 5/9/02
For Smith: Erich C. Straub
Issue: Whether, as a foundational requirement for introducing a witness’s prior inconsistent statement, the witness must be given the opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
Holding: Although § 906.13(2)(a)1 suggests that the witness must first be given opportunity to explain or deny, it adds that the prior inconsistent statement is admissible if the witness hasn’t been excused from testifying:
¶13.
Witness – Impeachment — Interplay with Fifth Amendment
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding: A line of inquiry that suggests potential bias is relevant; however, the witness’s “real and appreciable apprehension” of self-incrimination trumps the right of confrontation. In such an instance it may be necessary to prevent the witness from testifying or to strike portions of his or her testimony.