Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

14. Jury selection

State v. Jesus C. Gonzalez, 2015AP784-CR, 3/8/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Gonzalez raises two challenges to his conviction, at jury trial, of reckless homicide and reckless endangerment. The court of appeals finds any error harmless. Gonzalez first takes issue with the trial court’s dismissal of one of the jurors… Read More

{ 0 comments }

How to beat the “harmless error” rap

For the 2015 SPD conference, Judge Sankovitz and Attorneys Rob Henak and Melinda Swartz prepared an excellent outline on a problem that plagues many defense lawyers on appeal.  They have a great issue. They win it, but then the court of appeals or supreme court finds the error harmless.  This detailed, well-researched outline walks you… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Frank M. Zdzieblowski, 2014 WI App 130; case activity The prosecutor during voir dire elicited a promise from prospective jurors that they would convict if the State proved the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and then reminded the jurors of that promise in his rebuttal closing argument. The court of… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jacob Turner, 2013 WI App 23;  case activity Addressing an unusual set of facts, the court of appeals holds Turner’s constitutional rights to an impartial jury and due process were not violated by the seating of a juror who had not been summoned for service and who did not disclose that to the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen, 2012 WI 5, reversing 2010 WI App 175; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity The trial judge’s daughter-in-law was part of the jury pool; Sellhausen didn’t seek her removal for cause, but used a peremptory to strike her, which rendered harmless any possible error in the trial judge sua sponte failing to… Read More

{ 1 comment }

State v. Michael W. Carlson, 2001 WI App 296 For Carlson: Steven L. Miller Issue/Holding: Erroneous impaneling of a juror who, because he could not understand English, should not have been seated, wasn’t harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶46. The harmless error rule adopted last term by this court in State v. Harvey, 2002 WI… Read More

{ 0 comments }