Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Sentencing – Review – Accurate Information – Television Interview of Defendant, Relied on by Court
State v. Gerald L. Lynch, Jr., 2006 WI App 231, PFR filed 11/6/06 For Lynch: David R. Karpe Issue: Whether the sentencing court’s reliance on a television interview of the defendant, which led the court to criticize the defendant as “self-serving” rather than remorseful, violated the due process right to be sentenced on accurate information. Holding: ¶24 We […]
Sentencing – Review — Inaccurate Information – Review of Confidential Juvenile Records
State v. Jeris M. Moore, 2006 WI App 162 For Moore : Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8 The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred when it denied Moore ’s motion without an in camera review of the confidential juvenile records. We conclude that the trial court should have conducted an in […]
Confrontation – Bias: Limitation on Cross-Examination
State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48 For Olson: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination of a principal State’s witness was impermissibly curtailed when the trial court abruptly ended inquiry into whether the witness had threatened to cause the defendant (her ex-husband) “trouble” following his remarriage, where: The witness testified only with the aid […]
Confrontation – Limitation on Cross-Examination: Bias
State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48 For Olson: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: ¶11 Inquiry into a witness’s bias is always material and relevant. State v. Williamson, 84 Wis. 2d 370, 383, 267 N.W.2d 337, 343 (1978) (bias and improper motive of witness are never collateral). John Henry Wigmore has characterized cross-examination as “beyond […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: “Testimonial” Statement – Excited Utterances – Ongoing Emergency
State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06; subsequent history: affirmed, 2007 WI App 252 (court assumes without deciding that statements were testimonial but holds that Rodriguez forfeited right to confrontation by intimidating witness from testifying), PFR denied 2/21/08 For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether statements to […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: “Testimonial” Statement – “Spontaneous, Unsolicited Statements” to Police
State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8 For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: “(S)pontaneous, unsolicited statements offered to police officers immediately following the trauma of [declarant’s] cousin’s arrest at gunpoint” were not “testimonial” and therefore did not violate Crawford, ¶¶51-56: ¶53 Adams initiated the interaction with the officers; the police did not seek […]
Confrontation – Expert Testimony: Crime Lab Analyst, Opinion Based in Part on Another’s Testing
State v. David Barton, 2006 WI App 18 For Barton: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue: Whether the expert opinion of a crime lab analyst, presenting his own conclusions about tests performed by a non-testifying analyst, violated confrontation. Holding: ¶16 Like the unit leader’s testimony in Williams, Olson’s testimony was properly admitted because he was a qualified […]
Confrontation – Opportunity for Cross-Examination: Witness’s Claimed Loss of Memory
State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 ( prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205) For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis Issue: Whether the witness’s repeated claim of memory loss denied Rockette confrontation within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Holding: […]
Confrontation – Witness Testifying Behind Screen – Thomas Surviving Crawford
State v. Fred V. Vogelsberg, 2006 WI App 228 (Cert. petition filed, Case No. 06-1253) For Vogelsberg: Timothy A. Provis Issue1: Whether the holding of State v. Thomas, 150 Wis. 2d 374, 394, 442 N.W.2d 10 (1989) (witness may testify behind screen upon showing of necessity) survives Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Holding1: […]
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11: “Actually Yielded to Authority” Test for Seizure
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227 For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶19 … (T)his court ordinarily adopts and follows the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.… ¶27 Young, however, argues that we should reject Hodari D. and interpret Article I, […]
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.