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
Hearsay – Residual Exception — Child Sexual Assault Victim
State ex rel. Willie C. Simpson v. Schwarz, 2002 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/11/02 Issue/Holding: Child-sexual-assault-victim’s hearsay statement in this revocation case satisfies test for admissibility under residual exception, State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis. 2d 226, 421 N.W.2d 77 (1988).
Hearsay – Against-Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4) — Declarant Unavailable, Due Diligence to Locate
State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether Williams satisfied the unavailability requirement necessary to admit a declarant’s against-interest hearsay statement exculpating the defendant, § 908.045(4). Holding: Unavailability is determined by § 908.04(1)(e), and requires a “good-faith effort” and due diligence” in attempting […]
Hearsay – Against-Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4) — Right to Present
State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue:/Holding: The exclusion of hearsay evidence proffered by the defense is tested under the “two-part framework” of State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, ¶51, or “whether the proffered evidence was ‘essential to’ the defense, and whether […]
Against-Penal Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4)
State v. Shelleen B. Joyner, 2002 WI App 250, PFR filed 10/24/02 For Joyner: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the pretrial statement of defendant’s sister, who failed to appear at trial, was admissible as a statement against penal interest, § 908.045(4). Holding: A hearsay statement must be broken into its constituent parts, […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: Penal-Interest Statement, § 908.045(4) — Statement to Prison Cell-Mate / Non-Custodial Statement to Police
State v. Robert Bintz, 2002 WI App 204, affirmed on habeas review, Robert Bintz v. Bertrand, 403 F.3d 859 (7th Cir 2005) For Bintz: Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski Issue/Holding: Confessions to fellow inmates are sufficiently reliable to allow admissibility without confrontation. Issue/Holding: The codefendant’s (defendant’s brother) against-penal-interest statement to the police didn’t violate the confrontation clause, […]
Hearsay – Against-Penal Interest Statement Inculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4)
State v. Robert Bintz, 2002 WI App 204, affirmed on habeas review, Robert Bintz v. Bertrand, 403 F.3d 859 (7th Cir 2005) For Bintz: Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski Issue: Whether the codefendant’s noncustodial statement to the police — which, although not acknowledging responsibility for the murder, did admit to threatening the victim and placing both defendants […]
Witness – Impeachment — Interplay with Fifth Amendment
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 […]
Witness – Impeachment – Deferred Prosecution Agreement
State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, PFR filed 4/23/02 For Chu: Andrew Shaw Issue: Whether defendant was denied his right to exculpatory evidence when the state failed to disclose that a prosecution witness had received favorable treatment in another case. Holding: ¶37. As the State notes, prosecutions that end in dismissal and ordinance violations […]
Witness – Impeachment — Gang Affiliation — Admissibility on Bias
State v. Tito J. Long, 2002 WI App 114, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Long: Ann T. Bowe Issue/Holding: Evidence of gang affiliation is admissible (if state shows that defendant in fact was affiliated) to show witness’ bias, per United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 52 (1984). ¶¶17-19.
Due Process – Exculpatory Evidence – Posttrial Destruction
State v. Jerry L. Parker, 2002 WI App 159, PFR filed 5/20/02 For Parker: William Christopher Rose Issue: Whether posttrial destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence (taped drug transaction) requires new trial. Holding: ¶14. A defendant’s due process rights are violated by the destruction of evidence (1) if the evidence destroyed is apparently exculpatory and of such a […]
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.