The Confrontation Clause ordinarily bars the admission of testimonial statements of a witness if the witness does not appear at trial to testify and be cross-examined. But under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine, a witness’s testimonial statements may be admitted if the witness does appear to testify as a the result of wrongdoing by the defendant. The supreme court accepted the court of appeals’ certification of this case to address the scope of forfeiture doctrine, but as it happens the decision doesn’t address the doctrine because it determines the statements at issue are not testimonial and therefore do not implicate the Confrontation Clause.
The statute providing for grants to set up treatment courts, § 165.95, does not create a fundamental liberty interest for defendants to participate in treatment court and does not itself need to define the procedures for expulsion from treatment court. Read more
State v. Magnuson, 2000 WI 19, 233 Wis. 2d 40, 606 N.W.2d 536, laid down a bright-line rule for determining whether a person was in “custody” for purposes of earning sentence credit. The supreme court holds that rule is inconsistent with cases holding that an inmate who is mistakenly released from custody continues to serve his or her sentence, and so is entitled to credit for the time he or she was at liberty. Read more
In sentencing Johnson for possession of heroin with intent to delivery, the circuit court remarked that he’d traveled to Superior from Chicago to commit his crime. The sentencing court’s consideration of that fact did not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U. S. Constitution. Read more
Talley, who was convicted of first degree sexual assault causing pregnancy in violation of § 940.225(1)(a), argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit testimony from A.D., the complainant, the reasons why she initially falsely alleged Talley had forcible, nonconsensual sex with her. The court of appeals holds trial counsel’s strategy in questioning A.D. was reasonable. Read more
Morse challenges his convictions for three counts of misdemeanor theft by embezzlement, but the court of appeals holds he’s waived his challenges by pleading guilty. Read more
Staten and her two co-defendants engaged in a course of tax fraud that netted them over $200,000 in tax refunds that didn’t belong to them. Staten, the first of the three sentenced, argues that her sentence was unduly harsh compared to her co-defendants’ sentences and that the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion in changing its mind at the very end and ordering prison rather than probation on two of the counts. The court of appeals rejects her challenges. Read more
After failing to comply with a family court child placement order, Hall was charged with two felony counts of interference with child custody; he ultimately pled to a reduced charge of contempt of court. (¶¶2-3). Though he expressed his displeasure with the situation, he got through what appears to be a pretty thorough plea colloquy. (¶¶4-6). Before sentencing he moved to withdraw his plea, but the court of appeals holds he didn’t show a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal. Read more