On Point blog, page 1 of 1
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State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2025 WI 21, 6/13/25, reversing COA’s authored, unpublished opinion; case activity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.
COA affirms OWI conviction at trial, finding that nontestifying witness’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial and defendant not subjected to custodial interrogation.
State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.