On Point: 25. Jury

State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove

Issue/Holding:

¶15. In a challenge to a Batson ruling, we review the trial court’s determination as to whether the State had a discriminatory intent as a finding of historical fact, which we shall not disturb unless clearly erroneous. State v. Gregory,

State v. Shon D. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, PFR filed 2/3/03
For Brown: Robert T. Ruth

Issue: Whether defendant was entitled to an instruction on territorial jurisdiction, § 939.03, where the offense was partially committed out of the state.

Holding:

¶23. The question of whether or when a jury must be instructed on the State’s burden to establish its territorial jurisdiction over a defendant for charged offenses appears to be one of first impression in Wisconsin.

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,

State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9
For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan

Issue/Holding:

¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed in issue by the trial evidence,

State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227

For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in questioning prospective jurors outside the presence of defendant and counsel, on “hardship and infirmity requests” not to serve.

Holding: Questioning jurors about undue hardships “does not implicate the purposes of voir dire that are the premise for a defendant’s constitutional entitlement to be present with counsel” (namely,

State v. William G. Johnson, 2001 WI 52, 243 Wis. 2d 365, 627 N.W.2d 455
For Johnson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether § 948.025 (repeated sexual assault of a child) violates the rights to due process and unanimous verdict by not requiring unanimity that each predicate act occurred.

Holding: Unanimity is required on the elements of an offense, but generally not the alternate modes of commission unless required by considerations of due process.

State v. Edward A. Murillo, 2001 WI App 11, 240 Wis. 2d 666, 623 N.W.2d 187, habeas relief granted on other grds., Edward A. Murillo v. Frank, No. 04-2202, 4/1/05
For Murillo: Craig Albee

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion by referring to jurors by number rather than name.

Holding: Because of sufficient evidence of gang involvement in this case,

State v. Calvin Gregory, 2001 WI App 107, PFR filed 5/10/01
For Gregory: Meredith Ross, LAIP, UW Law School

Issue1: Whether defendant was entitled to a Batson hearing on the prosecutor’s articulated reasons for striking the lone African-American juror.

Holding1: The prosecutor’s asserted reasons — concerns about juror’s truthfulness; close proximity of juror’s residence to alleged scene of crime; juror’s own and family member’s involvement with criminal justice system —

State v. George S. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236
For Tulley: Patrick M. Donnelly

Issue: Whether excluding defendant and his attorney from in camera voir dire of several jurors was reversible error.

Holding: A defendant has both constitutional and statutory rights to be present, with assistance of counsel, at voir dire, and the trial court therefore erred in excluding them from the in camera proceedings.

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,