State v. Peter T. Heine, 2014 WI App 32; case activity Heine was charged with reckless homicide for supplying heroin to a young man who died after using the drug. (¶1). Tranchida, the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, concluded the victim died of a heroin overdose based both on his findings during the autopsy and on a toxicology… Read more
c. Expert testimony
Wisconsin Supreme Court fails to clarify application of the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony
State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller, 2013 WI 75, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity Witucki, a state crime lab analyst, testified that Richard Deadwiller’s DNA matched a DNA profile derived from semen found on vaginal and cervical swabs collected from two sexual assault victims. (¶¶2, 10). But Witucki… Read more
Court of appeals certification; case activity Issue certified: Is an OWI defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him violated when a supervisor of the state crime lab testifies that a lab report prepared and certified by another, but unavailable, lab analyst establishes the defendant’s illegal blood alcohol concentration? Does it make a difference that the… Read more
State v. Willie M. McDougle, 2013 WI App 43; case activity Failure to object to admission of, and expert opinion based on, autopsy reports prepared by another pathologist Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object on confrontation clause grounds to either the opinion testimony of the pathologist who did not conduct autopsy or… Read more
On review of published decision; case activity Confrontation — bases of expert opinion as “testimonial” hearsay Issue (Composed by On Point) When a State Crime Lab technician concludes there is a DNA match between defendant and assailant based in part on a report of a DNA profile prepared by an outside lab, is the outside lab… Read more
State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller, 2012 WI App 89, supreme court review granted 1/14/13; affirmed, 2013 WI 75; case activity A report from an “outside” lab (Orchid Cellmark) relied on by a State Crime Lab technician for “investigative” purposes in developing a DNA match between defendant and assailant wasn’t “testimonial,” therefore didn’t violate confrontation: ¶1… Read more
State v. Matthew Owen Hoff, Jr., 2011AP2096-CR, District 3, 6/26/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity ¶19 Here, before arresting Hoff, Gostovich observed him sleeping behind the wheel of a running car that was parked horizontally against the vertical parking stalls. Hoff did not awake to Gostovich’s shouting or knocking. When he finally awoke, he was… Read more
Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, 6/18/12, affirming People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125, 939 N.E. 268 A split Court (4-1-4) upholds against Confrontation objection, admissibility of expert testimony that a DNA profile, produced by a different lab, matched Williams’ profile. Because the rationale favoring admissibility doesn’t earn a clear majority of votes, the opinion… Read more
