On Point: 15. Evidence

State v. Phonesavanh Vanmanivong, 2003 WI 41, reversing, 2001 WI App 299
For Vanmanivong: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: The test for disclosing an informant’s identity under § 905.10(3)(b) is found in the concurrence to State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis. 2d 112, 321 N.W.2d 145 (1982):

¶24. We now reaffirm our holding in Dowe that the concurrence in Outlaw states the test to be applied in determining whether an informant’s identity must be disclosed.

Sampson v. Sampson, 2004 WI 57, reversing 2003 WI App 141, 265 Wis. 2d 803, 667 N.W.2d 831

Issue: “¶2 The question before this court is whether a lawyer’s voluntary production of documents in response to opposing counsel’s discovery request constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client privilege under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 905.11 when the lawyer does not recognize that the documents are subject to the attorney-client privilege and the documents are produced without the consent or knowledge of the client.”

Holding:

¶4 We agree with the circuit court.

State v. John S. Cooper, 2003 WI App 227, PFR filed 11/14/03
For Cooper: John A. Birdsall

Issue/Holding:

¶19. The test for determining if there has been an impermissible comment on a defendant’s right to remain silent is whether the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent.

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.

State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2003 WI App 168, affirmed, 2004 WI 70
For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella
Amici: Keith A. Findley, John T. Savee, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL

Issue/Holding: “(N)o witness may testify as an expert on issues of domestic law; ‘the only “expert” on domestic law is the court.’ Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund v.

State v. Joseph F. Rizzo II, 2003 WI App 236, PFR filed 11/13/03, on appeal after remand of State v. Rizzo I, 2002 WI 20
For Rizzo: Kathryn A. Keppel, Raymond M. Dall’osto

Issue: Whether Rizzo is entitled to a psychological examination of the sexual assault complainant pursuant to State v. Maday, 179 Wis. 2d 346, 507 N.W. 2d 365 (Ct.

State v. Steven G. Walters, 2003 WI App 24, reversed on other grds., 2004 WI 18
For Walters: Jenelle L. Glasbrenner, David A. Danz

Issue/Holding:

¶28. Again, the admissibility of expert testimony is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Friedrich, 135 Wis. 2d at 15. At the offer of proof hearing, Walters’s proposed expert, Dr.