Ohio v. Darius Clark, USSC No. 13-1352, 2015 WL 2473372 (June 18, 2015), reversing State v. Clark, 999 N.E.2d 592 ((Ohio 2013); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) A unanimous Supreme Court holds that statements a child made to his teachers about who was physically abusing him were not “testimonial” for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. The Court agrees that the Confrontation Clause… Read more
D. Hearsay
State v. Michael R. Griep, 2015 WI 40, 4/23/15, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity (including briefs) Opinion testimony by a qualified expert based on data produced by an unavailable forensic lab analyst doesn’t violate a defendant’s right to confrontation if the testifying expert formed an “independent” opinion based on a review of the unavailable analyst’s data. Griep… Read more
State v. Jason S. VanDyke, 2015 WI App 30; case activity (including briefs) In this prosecution for reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, VanDyke’s right to confrontation was violated where the medical examiner relied on the toxicology report of an out-of-state drug testing lab to conclude the victim had died of a heroin overdose, the… Read more
State v. Albert Lorenzo Finch, Sr., 2014AP744-CR, District 1, 10/7/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity Dodging an issue that has not been addressed in Wisconsin, the court of appeals assumes that even if the admission of the recording of a 911 call violated Finch’s right to confrontation the error was harmless because there was… Read more
Questions presented: 1. Does an individual’s obligation to report suspected child abuse make that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause? 2. Do a child’s out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher’s concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause? Lower… Read more
On review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity Issue (composed by On Point) Was Griep’s right to confront the witnesses against him violated by allowing the supervisor of an unavailable lab analyst to testify to his opinion about the defendant’s BAC based entirely on the report prepared by the unavailable analyst? This question has… Read more
State v. John M. Navigato, 2012AP2108-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity State v. Teddy W. Bieker, 2012AP2693-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity The circuit court, relying on the district attorney’s assertion of the so-called “interlocking confessions” doctrine, denied Navigato’s… Read more
State v. Michael R. Griep, 2014 WI App 25, petition for review granted, 8/5/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 40; case activity Griep’s right to confront the witnesses against him was not violated by allowing the supervisor of an unavailable lab analyst to testify to his opinion about the defendant’s BAC based entirely on the report prepared by… Read more
