decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Rhodes: John J. Grau Issue (from Table of Pending Cases): Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness in cross-examination was infringed, and, if so, whether the infringement was harmless error. Homicide case, tried on State’s theory Rhodes had motive to kill victim for beating Rhodes’… Read more
3. Denial of confrontation
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue/Holding: Confrontation error deemed harmful, where the following evinced the tainted evidence’s impact: prosecutor’s litigation strategy, ¶51; jury’s reaction (which included repeated requests to have tainted testimony read… Read more
State v. Harry L. Seymer, 2005 WI App 93 For Seymer: Andrea T. Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Improper termination of defendant’s cross-examination of the sexual assault complainant was not harmless error, where abbreviated though it was, cross had already “raise(d) serious questions concerning A.S.’s credibility and the veracity of her account …. Thus, it… Read more
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… Read more
