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
D. Hearsay
State v. Olu A. Rhodes, No. 2009AP25, District I, 7/7/10; reversed, 2011 WI 73 court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication), reversed, 2011 WI 73; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; BiC; Resp.; Reply ¶10 A defendant’s “right to confront and to cross-examine is not absolute[,]” however, and “‘trial judges retain wide latitude … to… Read more
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Mark S. Rosen; BiC: Resp.; Reply Double Jeopardy – Retrial Following Mistrial Mistrial on defendant’s motion, occasioned by prosecutorial failure to disclose that witness was cooperating with police in separate investigation of Jackson, didn’t bar retrial: there was no showing that the prosecutor was… Read more
State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208 For Doss: Robert R. Henak Issue: Whether the authenticating affidavit of a bank record was “testimonial” within the Confrontation Clause. Holding: ¶45 The parties do not dispute that the circuit court correctly described Crawford and Manuel as identifying business records as nontestimonial… Read more
State v. Craig A. Swope, 2008 WI App 175 For Swope: Dianne M. Erickson Issue: Whether an FBI agent’s expert opinion, that the simultaneous deaths of an elderly couple were the result of homicide rather than natural causes, was improperly based on hearsay, namely the opinions of two non-testifying experts who thought the likelihood of… Read more
State v. Samuel Nelis, 2007 WI 58, affirming unpublished decision For Nelis: Robert A. Ferg Issue/Holding: ¶45 Although Steve Stone testified at trial, Nelis argues that Steve Stone did not have the opportunity to explain or deny his alleged oral statements because the State did not examine him concerning such statements, and the oral statements… Read more
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, on bypass For Jensen: Craig W. Albee Issue/Holding: ¶24 We note that there is support for the proposition that the hallmark of testimonial statements is whether they are made at the request or suggestion of the police. See State v. Barnes, 854 A.2d 208, 211 ( Me… Read more
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, on bypass For Jensen: Craig W. Albee Issue/Holding: ¶27 In light of the standard set out above, we conclude that under the circumstances, a reasonable person in Julie’s position would anticipate a letter addressed to the police and accusing another of murder would be available for use… Read more
