Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

5. Impeachment of

State v. Marwan Mahajni, 2017AP1184-CR, 6/27/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) Mahajni moved for a new trial because, during deliberations in his case, the bailiff told the jury that they could not deadlock. They had to reach a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty. The circuit court denied Mahajni’s… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Miguel Angel Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, USSC No. 15-606, 2017 WL 855760 (March 6, 2017), reversing Peña-Rodriguez v. People, 350 P.3d 287 (Colo. 2015); Scotusblog page Every state and federal jurisdiction has some version of the “no-impeachment rule,” which, after a verdict is received, bars an aggrieved party from presenting testimony by jurors regarding the jury’s… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Question Presented: Most states and the federal government have a rule of evidence generally prohibiting the introduction of juror testimony regarding statements made during deliberations when offered to challenge the jury’s verdict. Known colloquially as “no impeachment” rules, they are typically codified as Rule 606(b); in some states, they are a matter of common law… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Wade M. Richey, 2014AP1758-CR, District 3, 3/17/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs) In this prosecution for reckless driving causing great bodily harm and homicide by operating with a detectable amount of a controlled substance, the circuit court erroneously excluded Richey’s medical records from evidence at trial, though the error was harmless… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Warger v. Shauers, USSC No. 13-517, 2014 WL 6885952 (December 9, 2014), affirming Warger v. Shauers, 721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) Resolving an issue that had split some federal circuit courts, the Supreme Court unanimously holds that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. James D. Miller, 2009 WI App 111

Waiver of Escalona argument; claim of self-defense where crime includes “utter disregard of life” element Click here for court of appeals decision, PFR filed 8/3/09 (opinion originally issued 4/23, withdrawn 5/12, reissued 5/21, withdrawn 6/12, reissued 7/2. Groundhog Day? Not quite: the withdrawn opinions found that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a lesser… Read More

{ 0 comments }