≡ Menu

6. Confrontation, 6th Am.

Dying declaration properly admitted

State v. Anthony R. Owens, 2016 WI App 32; case activity (including briefs) The circuit court properly admitted the victim’s statements about who shot him under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule, and the admission of the victim’s statements didn’t violate the Confrontation Clause. Owens was charged with shooting and killing Pinkard, who was… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Rozerick E. Mattox, 2015AP158; District 2, 2/10/2016, certification granted 4/7/16, conviction affirmed, 2017 WI 9, ; case activity (including briefs) Issue: Does it violate a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the State to introduce at trial a toxicology report identifying certain drugs in… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Glenn T. Zamzow, 2016 WI App 7, petition for review granted, 3/7/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 29; case activity (including briefs) Relying on precedent predating Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), two judges of the court of appeals hold that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to suppression hearings and that the circuit court could rely… Read more

{ 1 comment }

Evidence sufficient, evidentiary calls upheld

State v. Davis Kevin Lewis, 2014AP2773-CR, District 1, 12/01/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Lewis (whose first name is itself a matter of dispute, (¶1 n.2)) brings three challenges to his conviction after trial; all are rejected. The state charged Lewis with sexual assault of K.W., a cognitively disabled man for whom he was a… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Shironski A. Hunter, 2014AP2521-CR, District 1, 9/15/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The trial court didn’t err in admitting statements witnesses made during a 911 call and to police at the scene of the crime because the statements were excited utterances. Moreover, the statements weren’t testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, so… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Mark D. Jensen v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1380, 9/8/15, affirming Jensen v. Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013) At Jensen’s trial for the murder of his wife Julie the State introduced Julie’s handwritten letter to the police, written two weeks before her death, in which she wrote she would never… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Ohio v. Darius Clark, USSC No. 13-1352, 2015 WL 2473372 (June 18, 2015), reversing State v. Clark, 999 N.E.2d 592 ((Ohio 2013); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary) A unanimous Supreme Court holds that statements a child made to his teachers about who was physically abusing him were not “testimonial” for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. The Court agrees that the Confrontation Clause… Read more

{ 0 comments }

How to get your cert petition granted!

On June 9th, Professor Jeff Fisher from Stanford’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic led a day-long workshop for the State Public Defender’s Appellate Division at the law firm of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. The workshop focused on strategies for obtaining and opposing review by the United States Supreme Court.  Fisher clerked for Justice Stevens and… Read more

{ 2 comments }
RSS