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
6. Confrontation, 6th Am.
State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48 For Olson: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination of a principal State’s witness was impermissibly curtailed when the trial court abruptly ended inquiry into whether the witness had threatened to cause the defendant (her ex-husband) “trouble” following his remarriage, where: The witness testified only with the aid… Read more
State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48 For Olson: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: ¶11 Inquiry into a witness’s bias is always material and relevant. State v. Williamson, 84 Wis. 2d 370, 383, 267 N.W.2d 337, 343 (1978) (bias and improper motive of witness are never collateral). John Henry Wigmore has characterized cross-examination as “beyond… 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
State v. David Barton, 2006 WI App 18 For Barton: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue: Whether the expert opinion of a crime lab analyst, presenting his own conclusions about tests performed by a non-testifying analyst, violated confrontation. Holding: ¶16 Like the unit leader’s testimony in Williams, Olson’s testimony was properly admitted because he was a qualified… Read more
State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 ( prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205) For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis Issue: Whether the witness’s repeated claim of memory loss denied Rockette confrontation within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Holding… Read more
State v. Fred V. Vogelsberg, 2006 WI App 228 (Cert. petition filed, Case No. 06-1253) For Vogelsberg: Timothy A. Provis Issue1: Whether the holding of State v. Thomas, 150 Wis. 2d 374, 394, 442 N.W.2d 10 (1989) (witness may testify behind screen upon showing of necessity) survives Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Holding1… Read more
