State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06 For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the defendant’s brother testified that the non-testifying complainant had recanted, the prosecution could impeach the brother with the possibility that the complainant was motivated by fear due to the brother’s gang affiliation, ¶31: “A witness’s… Read more
6. Confrontation, 6th Am.
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 any… Read more
State v. Daniel D. King, 2005WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: The confrontation clause requires that the hearsay declarant be unavailable to testify at trial “and, critically, that the State make a ‘good-faith effort’ to produce the declarant at trial,” ¶6. The trial court erred in determining that the declarant was truly… Read more
State v. Antwan B. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, affirming 2004 WI App 111 For Manuel: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1 [general principles]: Assuming that an out of court statement first satisfies a hearsay rule (¶23), it does not implicate the “core” concern of the confrontation clause unless the statement is considered “testimonial” under… Read more
State v. Daniel D. King, 2005 WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: An interview by a detective of the victim at a hospital shortly after the charged assault, admitted into evidence as an excited utterance, is deemed “testimonial” (and, therefore, inadmissible under the confrontation clause) because it involved “response(s) to ‘structured police… Read more
State v. Antwan B. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, affirming 2004 WI App 111 For Manuel: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1 [general principles]: The two-part analysis of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) survives Crawford for use in determining Confrontation Clause admissibility of nontestimonial statements, ¶¶54-61 (unavailable declarant, and adequate indicia of reliability)… Read more
State v. Glenn H. Hale, 2005 WI 7, affirming, as modified, 2003 WI App 238 For Hale: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Under Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), prior testimony at a codefendant’s separate trial is inadmissible at Hale’s trial, given that the previously testifying witness cannot be located. ¶¶53-58… Read more
State v. Harry L. Seymer, 2005 WI App 93 For Seymer: Andrea T. Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the (pro se) sexual assault defendant’s attempt to cross-examine the complainant and principal witness was abruptly terminated by the trial court, purportedly because of the defendant’s “mocking tone” and “derisive behavior”; but where the record did… Read more
