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
j. “Testimonial” Evidence
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
State v. Samuel Nelis, 2007 WI 58, affirming unpublished decision For Nelis: Robert A. Ferg Issue/Holding: ¶45 Although Steve Stone testified at trial, Nelis argues that Steve Stone did not have the opportunity to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
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, on bypassFor Jensen: Craig W. Albee Issue/Holding: ¶31 Finally, we consider the statements Julie made to Wojt and DeFazio. Jensen argues that if the circumstances reveal that the declarant believed her statements to nongovernmental actors would be passed on to law enforcement officials, those statements are testimonial… Read more
State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06; subsequent history: affirmed, 2007 WI App 252 (court assumes without deciding that statements were testimonial but holds that Rodriguez forfeited right to confrontation by intimidating witness from testifying), PFR denied 2/21/08 For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether statements to… Read more
State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8 For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: “(S)pontaneous, unsolicited statements offered to police officers immediately following the trauma of [declarant’s] cousin’s arrest at gunpoint” were not “testimonial” and therefore did not violate Crawford, ¶¶51-56: ¶53 Adams initiated the interaction with the officers; the police did not seek… Read more
