State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply Confrontation – Generally The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26, citing Giles v… Read more
A. Generally
State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line) The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the… Read more
Docket Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court) Question Presented: Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements. Cert. Petition State’s Brief Opposing Cert SCOTUSblog… Read more
decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Rhodes: John J. Grau Issue (from Table of Pending Cases): Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness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
Jeffrey J. v. David D., 2010AP1717, District 3, 9/28/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for David D.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate Parent’s right to confrontation was satisfied by in-chambers discussion between judge and children during which they spoke in favor of termination, where their father killed their mother and grandparents… Read more
Docket Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court) Question Presented: Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements. Cert. Petition State’s Brief Opposing Cert SCOTUSblog… Read more
decision below: 2010 WI App 42; for Beauchamp: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell Issues (from Table of Pending Cases): Does the confrontation clause bar admission of testimonial dying declarations against a defendant in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 and State v. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, 281 Wis. 2d 554, 697 N.W.2d… Read more
7th circuit decision Habeas – Limits on Cros-Examination State court limitation on impeachment of a witness — so as to exclude that portion of a pre-trial conversation containing the defendant’s “self-serving,” thus inadmissible hearsay, statement — wasn’t an unreasonable application of controlling caselaw. Determination of whether “state interests, including those reflected in the state’s evidentiary… Read more
