If California and Texas can do it, can Wisconsin do it too? Click here to see Professor Edward Imwinkelried’s new article on revising postconviction relief statutes to cover convictions resting on subsequently invalidated expert testimony. Who can name a type of expert testimony that has been recently invalidated… Read more
5. Daubert
State v. S.D., 2016AP1701-1702, 7/5/17, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity This TPR appeal raises a number of interesting issues ranging from a Daubert challenge to the State’s psychologist and “parenting capacity assessment” to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to raise an “unconstitutional as applied” challenge to the standard… Read more
State v. Brandon Arthur Millard, 2016AP1474-CR, 4/20/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) ¶10 This court has previously rejected arguments that Daubert applies to a law enforcement officer’s testimony regarding HGN. See State v. VanMeter, No. 2014AP1852, unpublished slip op. (WI App Nov. 24, 2015), and State v… Read more
State v. Stanley J. Maday, Jr., 2017 WI 28, 4/5/17, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision, 2015AP366-CR; case activity (including briefs) This “he said, she said” case resulted in a verdict finding Maday guilty of child sexual assault. Catherine Gainey, the social worker who conducted a “cognitive graphic interview” of K.L., the alleged… Read more
Ten weeks ago SCOW issued Seifert v. Balink, its first decision interpreting and applying §907.02, the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony. The court split 2-1-2-2 (as in Abrahamson/AW Bradley–Ziegler–Gableman/Roggensack–Kelly/RG Bradley). That generated two On Point posts here and here, an Inside Track article here and a Wisconsin Lawyer article here. Today SCOW split 3-3 in… Read more
State v. Michael Chough, 2016AP406-CR, District 2, 1/25/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) Chough’s challenge to the reliability of expert testimony regarding his blood alcohol content at the time he was driving fails under State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, 356 Wis. 2d 796, 854 N.W.2d 687. ¶20 We see… Read more
Three separate opinions in Seifert v. Balink result in a 5-2 majority upholding admission of expert medical testimony under the Daubert standard. Because Seifert is the first Wisconsin Supreme Court case interpreting this standard for admission of expert testimony, it provides guidance to lower courts and to practitioners regarding the 2011 statutory changes. The On Point summary concisely… Read more
Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2,1/6/17, affirming a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs) It’s true. SCOW’s first decision on §907.02(1), which adopted the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony is 134 pages long and includes 4 separate opinions, but don’t despair. It’s not the mess you imagine. Reading the first 3 opinions by Abrahamson… Read more
