On Point blog, page 4 of 5
State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen, 2010 WI App 175, review granted 2/8/11
court of appeals decision; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity
Issues (formulated by On Point):
Whether a trial judge has a sua sponte duty to strike a prosepctive juror who is an in-law of the judge.
Whether defense counsel’s use of a peremptory strike to remove the judge’s in-law renders harmless any error in the judge’s failure to remove that juror.
See prior post for further discussion.
Juror Disqualification – In-Law of Presiding Judge
State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen, 2010 WI App 175, reversed, 2012 WI 5; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity
¶1 Sharon Sellhausen appeals her jury conviction based on the presence of the presiding judge’s daughter-in-law on the panel of potential jurors. The daughter-in-law was not seated on the jury because Sellhausen’s trial counsel used a peremptory challenge to remove her.
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Exercise of Discretion
State v. Mark H. Tody, 2009 WI 31, reversing unpublished opinion
For Tody: Byron C. Lichstein, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶32 … The correct principle of law that should have guided the circuit court judge is that a circuit court judge should err on the side of dismissing a challenged juror when the challenged juror’s presence may create bias or an appearance of bias.
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Employment by DA’s Office
State v. Dale L. Smith, 2006 WI 74, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Allison Ritter
Issue/Holding:
¶16 The sole question we must address on appeal is whether Smith was denied the right to an impartial jury by the circuit court’s refusal to strikeCharlotte for cause. Smith argues that Charlotte should have been disqualified as objectively biased because she was employed by the prosecuting attorney.
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Doubtful Fairness: Unequivocal Expression
State v. Howard C. Carter, 2002 WI App 55
For Howard: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Although review of a trial court’s determination of subjective (non-)bias of a prospective juror is generally deferential, here review is independent “because this is one of those rare situations where the prospective juror’s unambiguous response, rather than his demeanor, is the basis of his subjective bias.” ¶10. And, because the juror openly admitted his bias,
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Doubtful Fairness: Belief Police More Credible
State v. Scot A. Czarnecki, 2000 WI App 155, 237 Wis.2d 794, 615 N.W.2d 672
For Czarnecki: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court should have granted the defense motion to remove a prospective juror who acknowledged believing that police officers would be more credible than other witnesses.
Holding: Juror bias is reviewed with deference to the trial court’s resolution. Because police credibility was never at issue,
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Doubtful Fairness: Equivocal Statement
State v. Nathaniel A. Lindell, 2000 WI App 180, 238 Wis.2d 422, 617 N.W.2d 500, affirmed on other grounds, State v. Nathaniel A. Lindell, 2001 WI 108
For Lindell: Russell L. Hanson; Timothy J. Gaskell
Issue: Whether the prospective juror’s allowing, “I think I could” make a fair determination, established subjective bias.
Holding: The trial court’s ruling of no subjective bias isn’t clearly erroneous.
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification — Doubtful Fairness, Generally: Defer to Trial Court — Need for Precise Questioning
State v. Marquis O. Gilliam, 2000 WI App 152, 238 Wis.2d 1, 615 N.W.2d 660
For Gilliam: Robert B. Rondini
Issue: Whether the trial court’s denial of a motion to remove a juror based on subjective bias was clearly erroneous.
Holding: The issue of a juror’s subjective bias is reviewed deferentially to the trial court’s resolution. Though this case is different from prior cases — here, “whether the juror has expressed a prejudice or predilection in the first instance”
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification — Doubtful Fairness: Equivocal Statement — Deference to Trial Court Finding
State v. Jimmie R.R., 2000 WI App 5, 232 Wis.2d 138, 606 N.W.2d 196
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to strike for cause a potential juror who was equivocal on his ability to be fair.
Holding: The trial court did not err in finding no subjective bias.
When asked if he could listen to the evidence and apply the law,
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Doubtful Fairness: Predetermined Guilt – Trial Court Obligation to Conduct Hearing
State v. Theodore Oswald, 2000 WI App 2, 232 Wis.2d 62, 606 N.W.2d 207
For Oswald: Jerome F. Buting, Kathleen B. Stilling
Issue: Whether prospective jurors’ expressions of predetermined guilt established either objective or subjective bias.
Holding: Applying a mixed standard of review, the court discerns no bias, in that the strength of these opinions changed during voir dire and, more importantly, because the defense conceded factual guilt.