Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

F. Unavailable witness

State v. Peter J. Hanson, 2016AP2058-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 1/15/19; case activity (including briefs) Issues (from the petition for review): Whether the admission of hearsay statements of a defendant’s deceased wife inculpating him in murder violates his right to confrontation? Whether trial counsel is ineffective in failing to move to… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Larry L. Garner, 2016AP2201-CR, 4/17/18, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) The State charged Garner and 3 other co-defendants with 2 counts of armed robbery use of force, PTAC, and felony murder, PTAC. The trial court ordered separate trials. A mistrial occurred due to juror misconduct, so the court… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Esequiel Morales-Pedrosa, 2016 WI App 38; case activity (including briefs) The case law prohibiting vouching by one witness for the credibility of another witness didn’t clearly cover a forensic interviewer’s testimony that 90% of child sexual assault reports are true. Thus, trial counsel wasn’t deficient for failing to object to the testimony. At Morales-Pedrosa’s trial for… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Hardy v. Irving L. Cross, USSC No. 11-74, 12/12/11, reversing Cross v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 09-1666 The Seventh Circuit grant of habeas relief, on the ground “the state failed to demonstrate that it employed good faith efforts to locate the complainant” before declaring her “unavailable” and allowing her prior testimony to be read to… Read More

{ 1 comment }

7th circuit decision, reversed, Hardy v. Cross, USSC No. 11-74, 12/12/11 Habeas Review – Confrontation – Pre-Crawford (Ohio v. Roberts) Showing of Witness Unavailability The state court (Illinois) unreasonably applied controlling Supreme Court precedent in finding good-faith efforts to secure the presence of the declarant, before determining that she was unavailable so that her first-trial… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Scottie L. Baldwin, 2010 WI App 162 (recommended for publication); for Baldwin: Robert E. Haney; (principal briefs not posted on-line) The trial judge’s findings, though made prior to Giles v. California, 128 S.Ct. 2678 (2008), satisfied the test imposed by that case, that forfeiture of the right to confrontation requires intent to prevent the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Daniel D. King, 2005WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: The confrontation clause requires that the hearsay declarant be unavailable to testify at trial “and, critically, that the State make a ‘good-faith effort’ to produce the declarant at trial,” ¶6. The trial court erred in determining that the declarant was truly… Read More

{ 0 comments }