≡ Menu

F. Witnesses, Ch. 906

Cross-examination — Bias — Pending Charges

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Issue/Holding A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Sequestration — Prosecutor Talking to Witness During Break

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold Issue/Holding: ¶40. Green contends that the prosecutor, not the witness, violated the sequestration order by conversing with the witness during trial…. Green has not provided any support for the contention that a prosecutor violates a sequestration… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Involuntary Statement — Test

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565 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 of coercion, the police misconduct must be more… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Issue: Whether evidence that the defendant committed a burglary at the age of 13 was admissible as extrinsic evidence to impeach his testimonial denial, on cross-examination, of intent to steal. Holding: § 906.08(2) expressly prohibits using extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Witness – Impeachment — Pending Charges

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Holding: A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Character — Extrinsic Proof, § 906.08(2)

State v. Troy D. Moore, 2002 WI App 245 For Moore: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Extrinsic evidence offered by the state solely to bolster a witness’s credibility, by showing that he had provided reliable information leading to the arrests of other drug dealers, violated § 906.08(2). ¶15. (Note: the court holds open the question… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Carlos R. Delgado, 2002 WI App 38 For Delgado: Richard D. Martin, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8. After reviewing these cases, we can discern some general rules: (1) an expert witness can offer opinion testimony only if it complies with Wis. Stat. § 907.02; (2) the testimony can include opinions… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Zebelum Smith, 2002 WI App 118, PFR filed 5/9/02 For Smith: Erich C. Straub Issue: Whether, as a foundational requirement for introducing a witness’s prior inconsistent statement, the witness must be given the opportunity to explain or deny the statement. Holding: Although § 906.13(2)(a)1 suggests that the witness must first be given opportunity… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS