On Point blog, page 7 of 7
“Shiffra” Material – “Jensen” Testimony not Enough to Trigger
State v. Joseph F. Rizzo, 2002 WI 20, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 57, 241 Wis. 2d 241, 624 N.W.2d 854
For Rizzo: Franklyn M. Gimbel
Issue: Whether the prosecution opened the door to otherwise privileged “Shiffra” evidence.
Holding:
¶51. Before trial, the circuit court found that there was nothing relevant in D.F.’s treatment records that was not also in Dr.
“Shiffra” Material — In Camera Inspection
State v. Terrance W. Walther, 2001 WI App 23, 240 Wis. 2d 619, 623 N.W.2d 205
For Walther: Raymond M. Dall’Osto, Kathryn A. Keppel
Issue: Whether the defendant’s motion for in camera inspection of the child sexual assault complainant’s confidential records should have been granted.
Holding:
¶11 Here, Walther established more than the mere possibility that the requested records ‘may be necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.’
Cross-examination – in camera inspection of mental health records.
State v. Peter Ballos, 230 Wis.2d 495, 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Ballos: Robert N. Myeroff.
Issue: Whether the trial court should have ordered production of the state’s witness’s mental health records, for in camera inspection, upon showing that the witness had been hospitalized for depression and was obsessed with bomb-building, and where the theory of defense was that the witness rather than defendant committed the crime.
Mental Health Records, Shiffra in camera inspection – Showing of Materiality
State v. Peter Ballos, 230 Wis.2d 495, 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Ballos: Robert N. Myeroff.
Issue: Whether the trial court should have ordered production of the state’s witness’s mental health records, for in camera inspection, upon showing that the witness had been hospitalized for depression and was obsessed with bomb-building, and where the theory of defense was that the witness rather than defendant committed the crime.
“Shiffra” Material –Preliminary Showing for In Camera Inspection
State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391, 395, 546 N.W.2d 570 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Munoz: Craig M. Kuhary
Issue/Holding:
Here, as in Lederer, the defense offered nothing more than “the mere possibility” that the records “might produce some evidence helpful to the defense.” Lederer, however, was decided before Shiffra. The broad language of Shiffra-“that the sought-after evidence is relevant and may be helpful to the defense,”