Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

c. Evidence

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2018AP2104, petition to review a published court of appeals decision granted 3/17/20; case activity Issues: To prove that a person meets the criteria for commitment under Chapter 980, must the state present expert opinion testimony that the person is “dangerous” as defined under ch. 980? Should the standard of review… Read More

{ 0 comments }

SCOW: Precedent? What precedent? ¯\_(ヅ)_/¯

State v. Anthony James Jendusa, 2018AP2357-CRLV, review of a decision of the court of appeals denying the state’s petition for leave to appeal; case activity Before turning to the issues presented, we’ll start with an observation about how this case might seem to affect appellate litigation in all kinds of cases, civil and criminal. As… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2019 WI App 63, petition for review granted, 3/17/20; case activity (including briefs) At a hearing on a committed person’s petition for discharge from a ch. 980 commitment, the state has the burden of proving the person is still a sexually violent person—that is, that the person: (1) has a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Scott Maher, 2010AP460, District 4, 5/26/11 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Maher: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Testimony from a State’s expert witness describing the ch. 980 screening process was irrelevant. ¶11      We addressed the issue of the admissibility of this same type of evidence in State v… Read More

{ 0 comments }

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Oliver: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br. SVP – Evidence 1. Unobjected-to testimony by a state evaluator that DHS psychologists are more “conservative” in their conclusions than other SVP experts did not “cloud” the issue and therefore did not support… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175

court of appeals decision; for Kaminski:Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate SVP: Misconduct Evidence, § 904.04(2), Reliance on by Expert  SVP expert may rely on the respondent’s unproven prior misconduct in deriving his or her opinion. The § 904.04(2) “preliminary relevance” requirement, State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 59-61, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999); State… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175 For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: “Infrequent references to annual re-evaluation” were not “sufficiently egregious to diminish the jury’s sense of responsibility for its verdict,” ¶¶20-24… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175 For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Testimony by a state’s expert to the effect that the only treatment program for psychopaths is at Sand Ridge did not require a new trial under the theory that it implicitly suggested commitment would be in the community’s and… Read More

{ 0 comments }