j. “Testimonial” Evidence

State v. Earnest Lee Nicholson, 2015AP2154-CR & 2015AP2155-CR, 3/7/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Nicholson challenges the validity of the no-contact order he was convicted of violating, and also argues his rights to confrontation and to testify were violated. The court of appeals rejects his claims. The no-contact order In… Read more

State v. Rozerick E. Mattox, 2017 WI 9, on certification from the court of appeals, 2015AP158-CR, 2/14/17; case activity (including briefs) S.D. was found dead in circumstances strongly suggestive of a drug overdose. The police summoned the medical examiner, who eventually performed an autopsy. The examiner sent samples from S.D.’s body to a lab in… Read more

Steven D. Lisle, Jr., v. Guy Pierce, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3047, 2016 WL 4245489, 8/11/16 Lisle sought federal habeas relief from his murder and aggravated battery convictions, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the admission of a hearsay statement identifying him as the man who shot two… Read more

On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity (including briefs) Issue (from certification): Does it violate a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the State to introduce at trial a toxicology report identifying certain drugs in a deceased victim’s system and/or testimony of… Read more

State v. Rozerick E. Mattox, 2015AP158; District 2, 2/10/2016, certification granted 4/7/16, conviction affirmed, 2017 WI 9, ; case activity (including briefs) Issue: Does it violate a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the State to introduce at trial a toxicology report identifying certain drugs in… Read more

State v. Shironski A. Hunter, 2014AP2521-CR, District 1, 9/15/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The trial court didn’t err in admitting statements witnesses made during a 911 call and to police at the scene of the crime because the statements were excited utterances. Moreover, the statements weren’t testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, so… Read more

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