On Point: c. Extraneous info.

State v. John E. Paul, 2018AP1496, 7/11/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Paul had three prior OWIs and was on trial for a fourth, plus the associated PAC charge. During voir dire, the prosecutor told the jury that

the other thing is the prohibited alcohol concentration in this particular case is .02. Now, many of you may have heard of the .08, but in this instance, the prohibited alcohol concentration is .02. Now, is there any person here who thinks it’s unfair that somebody could be prosecuted or convicted of the offense of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration of .02 percent or .02 grams per 210—I forgot, but per deciliter of the  defendant’s breath? So it’s a .02 standard. Is there any person here who thinks that would be unfair?

State v. Dawn M. Hackel, 2014AP1765-CR, District 4, 3/19/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

During voir dire at an OWI trial, a sheriff’s deputy/prospective juror said he had arrested drunk drivers, testified in drunk driving cases, and said that based on his professional training and occupation the State had sufficient evince to convict Hackel, and, therefore, she was guilty as charged. The court of appeals held this in no way tainted the jury panel heading into trial.

seventh circuit decision

Habeas – Jury Exposure to Extraneous Information 

Subsequent to trial, Hall discovered that a juror’s son was a fellow inmate of Hall who initially told the juror that Hall was likely innocent, but later indicated that he “and several co-inmates had changed their mind about Hall and thought him guilty.” The (Indiana) state court ruled that this extrinsic information wasn’t prejudicial: the burden to show actual prejudice from exposure to extraneous information is on the defendant and,

State v. Edron D. Broomfield, 223 Wis.2d 465, 589 N.W.2d 225 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Broomfield: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Broomfield was denied fair trial because juror overheard, prior to trial, prejudicial extraneous information relating to Broomfield’s past misconduct.

Holding: Exposure to extrinsic information implicates the rule against verdict-impeachment, R. 906.06(2). The party must first establish by competent testimony three things: extraneous (as opposed to merely deliberative) information;

State v. Judith L. Kiernan, 227 Wis.2d 736, 596 N.W.2d 760 (1999), affirming State v. Kiernan, 221 Wis.2d 126, 584 N.W.2d 203 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kiernan: Chad A. Lanning, Dennis M. Melowski, Barry S. Cohen, S.C.

Issue: Whether prospective jurors who had been part of a jury that two days earlier returned a verdict of guilty in a case involving the same defense attorney,