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
F. Witnesses, Ch. 906
State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148 For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin Issue/Holding: ¶39 … (A)ppellate courts are sensitive to judicial intervention by a trial judge in the form of judicial witnesses and judicial questioning …. ¶40 … We have always recognized judicial authority to call and interrogate witnesses but simultaneously admonished… Read more
State v. Victor K. Johnson, 2004 WI 94, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals Issue: Whether the State impermissibly cross-examined the defendant about the truthfulness of another witness. Holding: ¶2. We conclude that the purpose and effect of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Johnson was to impeach Johnson’s credibility, not to bolster the credibility of… Read more
State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03 For Ross: Andrew Mishlove Issue/Holding: ¶44. The State charged Gundy as an accomplice to Ross’s criminal activity. Gundy was arrested in Maryland, and brought back to Milwaukee where he was held in custody. Ross contends that pursuant to a plea agreement, Gundy was released… Read more
State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed, 2004 WI 33 For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: ¶24. Wisconsin Stat. § 906.09 permits the admission of prior convictions for impeachment purposes. (See text of statute at ¶9.) The statute reflects the presumption that “a person who has been convicted of a crime is less likely… Read more
State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565; habeas denied, Samuel v. Frank, 525 F. 3d 566 (7th Cir 2008) For Samuel: Robert A. Henak Issue/Holding: ¶30. With due process as our touchstone, we conclude that when a defendant seeks to suppress witness statements as the product… Read more
State v. Andre Bolden, 2003 WI App 155, PFR filed 7/2/03 For Bolden: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: A defendant may be asked whether another witness offering contradicting testimony “is lying,” ¶11. The seminal case is State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984): one witness may not give an opinion as to whether… Read more
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Issue/Holding:A line of inquiry that suggests potential bias is relevant; however, the witness’s “real and appreciable apprehension” of self-incrimination trumps the right of confrontation. In such an instance it may be necessary to prevent the witness from testifying or to… Read more
