Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

D. Identification procedure

State v. Raynard Rashawn Jackson, 2012AP1854, 2012AP1861, and 2012AP1862, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP1854; 2012AP1861; 2012AP1862 Jackson was alleged to have been involved in a shooting, and as part of their investigation the police constructed a photo array to show to three eyewitnesses, all of whom… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Deontaye Terrel Lusk, 2012AP587-CR, 2012AP588-CR, 2012AP589-CR, & 2012AP590-CR, District 1, 7/16/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP587-CR; 2012AP588-CR; 2012AP589-CR; 2012AP590-CR Joinder Lusk was charged in four cases with crimes arising from five armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery that occurred in April, May, June, and July, 2009. In  two of the robberies the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Alexander Jerome Wiley, 2012AP71-CR, District 1, 12/11/12 court of appeals decision (3 judge; not recommended for publication); case activity Wiley, a co-defendant in a reckless homicide case, moved the circuit court to exclude the in-court identification testimony of an eyewitness to the crime who had picked Wiley out of a photo array. He argued that… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Scott E. Ziegler, 2012 WI 73, on certification; case activity Interfering with Child Custody, § 948.31(2) – Elements Language in State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis. 2d 393, 742 N.W.2d 332, that one method of violating § 948.31(2) (interference with child custody) requires the parent’s “initial permission” to take child, is now “withdrawn”: ¶52  Pursuant to the plain… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kwesi B. Amonoo, 2011AP566, District 1, 1/24/12 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Amonoo: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity Amonoo fails to show that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance with respect to pretrial identification procedure (context: “sufficient reason” to overcome serial litigation bar following direct appeal): ¶15      Amonoo contends that of… Read More

{ 1 comment }

Eyewitness ID Instructions and …

… Perry v. New Hampshire: The Federal Evidence Blog gauges the impact of last-week’s decision relegating “happenstance” but suggestive ID procedure to jury (rather than due process) determination. Pointing out that Perry highlights 5 “protections” against unreliable IDs, the post keys on appropriate jury instructions (and promises to “review some of these [other] key protections in upcoming posts”; might… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, 1/11/12, affirming State v. Perry (N.H. sup. ct. 11/18/10) For purposes of due process, a pretrial identification isn’t suppressible unless the product of improper law enforcement activity. We have not extended pretrial screening for reliability to cases in which the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement officers. Petitioner… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Line-Up

State v. Jose A. Reas-Mendez, 2010AP1485-CR, District 1, 8/23/11 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Reas-Mendez: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity The victim’s pretrial lineup identification of Reas-Mendez isn’t suppressible: the lineup was comprised of “four men, all of generally the same build, in the same type of clothing, with… Read More

{ 0 comments }