6. Confrontation, 6th Am.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Sterling: Dianne M. Erickson; BiC; Resp.; Reply Charging Decision – Judicial Involvement Increase in the charge, following trial judge’s veiled suggestion to the prosecutor that such an increase would be appropriate, wasn’t occasioned by judicial interference with prosecutorial discretion, ¶¶16-22. Initially charged with first-degree reckless… 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court of  appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Mark S. Rosen; BiC: Resp.; Reply Double Jeopardy – Retrial Following Mistrial Mistrial on defendant’s motion, occasioned by prosecutorial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

7th Circuit court of appeals decision Habeas – Procedural Bar Smith defaulted one claim by failing to raise it “in a full round of appellate review” in state court (i.e., he failed to include the issue in his request for Illinois supreme court review). He is unable to overcome the resultant bar on habeas review… Read more

court of appeals decision; for Carter: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br. Ex Parte Judicial Questioning, Pretrial Proceeding Pretrial judicial questioning of a witness at return of a bench warrant worked deprivation of the defendant’s rights to counsel and presence at trial when the witness was subsequently impeached with statements she… Read more

7th Circuit decision; granting habeas relief in: Wis App Nos. 2002AP791 and 2006AP2708 (earlier decision, 1/21/10, now amended); appeal following remand, 11-3228 Habeas – Confrontation “Because it was error for the state court to admit the co-actors’ statements through the police detective’s testimony at trial, violating Ray’s right of confrontation, we reverse and remand.” A somewhat recurrent problem. The… Read more

Confrontation – Lab Report USSC decision. An order, really, not an opinion, tantamount to a “GVR” (Grant, Vacate, Remand): PER CURIAM. We vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. ___ (2009). Significance, as explained by Briscoe’s attorney and… Read more

court of appeals decision, affirmed, 2011 WI 27; for Beauchamp: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; case activity Dying Declaration, § 908.045(3) ¶8        …  dying declaration, codified in Wisconsin Stat. Rule 908.045(3): “A statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of… Read more