On Point: E. Privilege, Ch. 905

State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110, affirming as modified 2004 WI App 51
For Intervenor Dawn R.: Dwight D. Darrow

Issue/Holding: Revelation of a child’s statement to a counselor, discussing whether or not she had been sexually abused, may not be resisted on ground of privilege:

¶7        We do not address these issues regarding waiver because we conclude that there is no privilege here.

State v. Maurice S. Ewing, 2005 WI App 206
For Ewing: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding: Where the defendant waived his rights and gave pre-trial statements to the police and presented an alibi defense at trial, prosecutorial evidence that the defendant had not revealed the alibi during those statements, and exploitation of that omission during closing argument, did not amount to impermissible comment on silence. “Rather, the prosecutor was highlighting the inconsistency between what Ewing did say and what his alibi witnesses testified to at trial.” ¶¶10-13.

Custodian of Records for Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, reconsideration denied, 2004 WI 149

Issue/Holding:

¶11  Wahl contends that Wis. Stat. § 13.96, as it interacts with Wis. Stat. § 905.01, creates a statutory privilege that, while not expressly stated, is implicit in LTSB’s obligation to treat all information within its possession as confidential.  Therefore, as the legal custodian of the information stored by the LTSB,

State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed as modified, 2005 WI 110
For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow

Issue/Holding:

¶15. This court recently analyzed whether waiver of the attorney-client privilege must be intentional under Wis. Stat. § 905.11. Sampson Children’s Trust v. Sampson 1979 Trust, 2003 WI App 141, 265 Wis.

State v. Richard G.B., 2003 WI App 13, PFR filed 1/13/03
For Richard G.B.: Bridget E. Boyle

Issue: Whether the “third-party exception” to spousal privilege — which overrides the privilege for crimes committed “against” the spouse, § 905.05(3) — is triggered by sexual assault of a non-spouse, on the theory that such an act amounts to adultery, § 944.16(1), hence a crime against the spouse.

Holding:

¶15.

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

Issue/Holding:

¶33. With the benefit of these above-stated standards, we now move to the second issue: the application of the procedures in this case. The parties here agree, as do we, that it was error for the circuit court to rely upon an unsworn memo in determining whether the identities of the confidential informants should be disclosed.

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. Jeffrey J. Meeks, 2003 WI 104, overruling State v. Jeffrey J. Meeks,
For Meeks: Christopher T. Van Wagner

Issue: Whether the trial court, in ruling on competency, improperly relied on its perceptions of the defendant’s attorney in a prior case, in stressing that that attorney hadn’t raised competency.

Holding:

¶1     …