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
6. Confrontation, 6th Am.
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: The present convictions stemmed from Jorgensen showing up for an otherwise unrelated hearing intoxicated; without objection, the prosecutor obtained admission of that hearing’s transcript, which the trial court read to the jury: is Jorgensen entitled… Read more
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶39 Jorgensen’s right to confrontation was also violated during the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor took what the jury had improperly heard during the trial a step further. She “testified” that Jorgensen was a “chronic… Read more
Go: here. Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) fundamentally altered the confrontation-forfeiture doctrine: There, the Court held in effect that the forfeiture doctrine “applie(s) only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying,” although the Court also allowed that “(e)arlier abuse, or threats of abuse, intended to dissuade the… 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State v. Samuel Nelis, 2007 WI 58, affirming unpublished decision For Nelis: Robert A. Ferg Issue/Holding: ¶45 Although Steve Stone testified at trial, Nelis argues that Steve Stone did not have the opportunity to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
