On Point: 41. Trial Procedures

on review of published decision; for Novy: Bridget E. Boyle; case activity

Rebuttal – Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation / Sleeping Juror 

Issues (Composed by On Point) caution: issue-identification necessarily speculative; check case activity link after briefs filed for verification of issues: 

1. a) Whether evidence ruled inadmissible during the State’s case-in-chief as a sanction for violating discovery rules is thereby rendered inadmissible at all stages,

State v. Joel Joseph Lobermeier, 2012 WI App 77 (recommended for publication); for Lobermeier: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Appellate Procedure – Waiver – Jury Instructions 

Failure to object to a jury instruction amounts to a failure to preserve for review an asserted objection, which must therefore be reviewed in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nonetheless, failure to object to a “material variance”

State v. Allen K. Umentum, 2011AP2622-CR. District 3, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Umentum: Roberta A. Heckes; case activity

Under a local, Brown County “standing order,” all in-custody defendants appearing at jury trial were required, without particularized demonstration of need, to wear a non-visible stun belt. The courthouse had no screening checkpoints, and any defendant was entitled to relief from the order “for good cause shown.”

seventh circuit decision

Habeas – Knowing Use of False Testimony (“Napue”) 

Due process prohibits knowing prosecutorial use of false testimony, Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). However, the prosecutor’s exploitation of Bland’s incorrect testimony on a potentially important point (the date his gun was confiscated) doesn’t support habeas relief on a Napue-type theory.

Napue and Giglio hold that a prosecutor may not offer testimony that the prosecutor knows to be false.

State v. Brent T. Novy, 2012 WI App 10 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 6/13/12; for Novy: Joseph George Easton; case activity

Rebuttal – Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation 

Expert witness testimony, excluded from the State’s case-in-chief as a sanction failure to identify the witness during discovery, was admissible on rebuttal to attack the defendant’s testimony after he testified.

Dawn H. v. Pah-Nasa B., 2011AP1198, District 3, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Pah-Nasa B.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Given the proof of lack of parental responsibility as a ground for terminating Pah-Nasa’s rights, counsel’s failure to object to testimony about a fight between Pah-Nasa and his mother wasn’t prejudicial.

¶14      We conclude Pah-Nasa has failed to prove prejudice,

Kenosha County DHS v. Amber D., 2011AP562, District 2, 8/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amber D.: Thomas K. Voss; case activity

Timothy M.’s appearance by telephone, occasioned by his incarceration, didn’t violate his due process right to meaningfully participate in TPR proceedings, Waukesha Cnty. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, ¶10, 307 Wis. 2d 372,

State v. Jeremy M. Bootz, 2010AP2795-CR, District 2, 7/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bootz: Craig S. Powell; case activity

Counsel “had no obligation to object to” the testimony of “a bona fide rebuttal witness,” hence didn’t perform deficiently.

The court summarizes ground-rules relative to rebuttal witnesses, overarching principles being: “A bona fide rebuttal witness is a witness whose testimony only becomes necessary and appropriate after the defense presents its case-in-reply. 

On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of State v. Funk and State v. Denson, by the Honorable Richard J. Sankovitz, Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Feel free to submit comments in the box at the end of the Post.

Trial judges monitor the flurry of end-of-term Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions for new rules of decision and new procedures to be followed in our courts. 

State v. Rickey R. Denson, 2011 WI 70, affirming unpublished summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski; case activity

¶8   A criminal defendant’s constitutional right not to testify is a fundamental right that must be waived knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.  However, we conclude that circuit courts are not required to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to determine whether a defendant is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving his or her right not to testify.