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
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Federal Health Care Ineligibility, 42 U.S.C., § 1320a-7(a)(4)
State v. Hank J. Merten, 2003 WI App 171 For Merten: Dana W. Duncan Issue/Holding: ¶8. Accordingly, the resolution of this appeal requires us to determine whether the effect of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a)(4), which excludes individuals convicted of a felony related to a controlled substance from participating in federal health care programs, is a […]
Witness – Impeachment — Pending Charge — Accomplice
State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03 For Ross: Andrew Mishlove Issue/Holding: ¶44. The State charged Gundy as an accomplice to Ross’s criminal activity. Gundy was arrested in Maryland, and brought back to Milwaukee where he was held in custody. Ross contends that pursuant to a plea agreement, Gundy was released […]
Impeachment — Prior Convictions, § 906.09
State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed, 2004 WI 33 For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: ¶24. Wisconsin Stat. § 906.09 permits the admission of prior convictions for impeachment purposes. (See text of statute at ¶9.) The statute reflects the presumption that “a person who has been convicted of a crime is less likely […]
Involuntary Statement of Witness (Not Defendant) — Admissibility — Test
State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565; habeas denied, Samuel v. Frank, 525 F. 3d 566 (7th Cir 2008) For Samuel: Robert A. Henak Issue/Holding: ¶30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product […]
Opinion Testimony — Comment by One Witness on Whether Another Witness “Is Lying”
State v. Andre Bolden, 2003 WI App 155, PFR filed 7/2/03 For Bolden: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: A defendant may be asked whether another witness offering contradicting testimony “is lying,” ¶11. The seminal case is State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984): one witness may not give an opinion as to whether […]
Expert Testimony – On Issue of Law
State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2003 WI App 168, affirmed, 2004 WI 70 For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella Amici: Keith A. Findley, John T. Savee, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL Issue/Holding: “(N)o witness may testify as an expert on issues of domestic law; ‘the only “expert” on domestic law is the court.’ […]
“Maday” Examination of Complainant (Defendant’s Right to Examine Complainant’s Psychological Condition), to Meet State’s “Jensen” Testimony
State v. Joseph F. Rizzo II, 2003 WI App 236, PFR filed 11/13/03, on appeal after remand of State v. Rizzo I, 2002 WI 20 For Rizzo: Kathryn A. Keppel, Raymond M. Dall’osto Issue: Whether Rizzo is entitled to a psychological examination of the sexual assault complainant pursuant to State v. Maday, 179 Wis. 2d […]
Expert Testimony – Memory and Suggestibility of Child Witness
State v. Steven G. Walters, 2003 WI App 24, reversed on other grds., 2004 WI 18 For Walters: Jenelle L. Glasbrenner, David A. Danz Issue/Holding: ¶28. Again, the admissibility of expert testimony is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Friedrich, 135 Wis. 2d at 15. At the offer of proof hearing, Walters’s proposed […]
Hearsay, Definitions – “Assertion,” § 908.01(1) – Expression of Fact, Condition or Opinion
State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03 For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding1: “(W)e conclude that ‘assertion,’ as used in § 908.01(1) means an expression of a fact, condition, or opinion.” ¶38. And, the speaker must intend the utterance to be an “assertion” as thus defined, because “when a speaker […]
Hearsay, Definitions – “Statement,” § 908.01(1) – Truth of Matter Asserted
State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03 For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly Issue: Whether a homicide victim’s statement – “If I am not home in half an hour come looking for me” – was a hearsay “statement,” as defined in § 908.01(1), i.e., offered for the truth of the matter […]
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.