On Point: 48. Witnesses

Fond du Lac County v. John Anthony Hettwer, 2020AP 1422, 7/21/21, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The county charged Hettwer with OWI- and PAC-first. At the first attempted trial, the jury was sworn, but before opening statements could begin, the county told the court that the phlebotomist it intended to call as a witness was home with a sick child, and asked that she be allowed to testify by telephone. Hettwer objected and ultimately the court declared a mistrial. (No double-jeopardy problem here because an OWI-1 is non-criminal.)

State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court denied Atwater’s request to have trial counsel testify at a Machner hearing by telephone rather than in person, as trial counsel had moved out of state and returning to testify would be onerous and logistically difficult. The court then denied Atwater’s postconviction motion because he couldn’t get trial counsel to the hearing and couldn’t prevail without trial counsel’s testimony. The court of appeals holds the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by rejecting Atwater’s request for remote testimony by trial counsel.

State v. Micah Nathaniel Reno, 2016AP1371-CR, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Reno’s trial lawyer wanted to call A.A. as a witness at trial. But A.A. had a pending case and A.A.’s lawyer told Reno’s lawyer not to talk to her. Thinking he was barred by the ethics rules from talking to a represented person, Reno’s lawyer didn’t attempt to talk to A.A. or call her as a witness. Trial counsel was ineffective because he was not attempting to talk to A.A. about the subject matter of her case, but only about the subject matter of Reno’s case, and therefore counsel wasn’t barred under the rules of ethics from trying to talk to or call A.A. as a witness.

State v. Keimonte Antoine Wilson, Sr., 2017 WI 63, 6/22/17, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court holds that the provisions of § 885.03 govern service of a subpoenas in criminal cases, not the provisions of § 805.07.

On review of a per curiam opinion; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

1. Which statute governs the service of a subpoena in a criminal case: §885.03 which provides that a subpoena may be left at a witness’s abode or §805.07 and §801.11 which require reasonable diligence to personally serve a witness before leaving the subpoena at her abode?

2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that he had properly served the witness with a subpoena per §885.03? If not, then whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to attempt to serve the witness personally before leaving the subpoena at her abode as required by §801.11.

State v. Micha S. Pruitt, 2016AP251-CR, District 4, 8/18/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The statute permitting telephone proceedings in criminal cases, § 967.08, does not permit the presentation of testimony by telephone during a criminal jury trial.

OLR v. John Kenyatta Riley, 2016 WI 70, 7/15/16; case activity (including briefs)

Leaving us with another splintered decision as the current term comes to its end, a majority of the supreme court votes to publicly reprimand an attorney for “offering” false testimony from his client and then failing to take reasonable measures to correct the testimony. The precedential value of the opinion is uncertain, and perhaps nil, as there’s no majority rationale for the decision and it involves a previous version of the relevant ethical rule; nonetheless, every lawyer who calls witnesses should be aware of it and contemplate what it might portend.

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding:A line of inquiry that suggests potential bias is relevant; however, the witness’s “real and appreciable apprehension” of self-incrimination trumps the right of confrontation. In such an instance it may be necessary to prevent the witness from testifying or to strike portions of his or her testimony. ¶¶51-52. (No error found here,

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.

State v. Cornelius R. Reed, 2002 WI App 209, PFR filed 7/16/02
For Reed: Stephanie G. Rapkin
Issue/Holding: The trial court has discretion to deny a defense request that a witness be allowed to testify in street rather than jail clothes. That discretion was properly exercised here: allowing the witnesses to change in bullpens would have created a security risk, ¶8; in contradistinction to a defendant,