On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Statute permitting closed circuit audiovisual testimony of a child is still constitutional
State v. Ryan L. Bessert, 2021AP1062-CR, District 3, 5/3/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court properly applied § 972.11(2m)(a) under the circumstances of this case when allowing the complaining child witness to testify via closed circuit television, so Bessert’s right to confrontation was not violated. In addition, assuming without deciding that Bessert’s right to a public trial was violated because the courthouse doors were locked when the circuit court issued its verdict, the court employed an appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation by timely re-announcing the verdicts in open court.
Right to a public trial. Lay testimony about events depicted on surveillance video.
State v. Amos L. Small, 2013 WI App 117; case activity
Right to a public trial
The circuit court appropriately excluded a person from the courtroom under State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, after the prosecutor asserted the had threatened a state’s witness after her testimony. (¶9). While Small’s lawyer objected to the exclusion of the person on the grounds it violated Small’s right to a public trial and was based on a hearsay statement,
State v. Nancy J. Pinno, 2011AP2424-CR/State v. Travis J. Seaton, 2012AP918, certification granted, 2/25/13
On review of court of appeals certification; case activity: Pinno; Seaton
Issue (from certification):
Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?
See our previous post for further discussion.