At last week’s annual State Public Defender conference Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, did a presentation about new challenges to forensic science evidence that could be brought using Wisconsin’s recently adopted changes to the rules governing expert opinion testimony. He noted that so-called “pattern matching” analyses—which involve comparison of, for example, fingerprints, hair, bite marks, tool marks on bullets, and handwriting samples—are ripe for challenge. He recommended an article by Karen Kafadar about statistical issues in evaluating forensic evidence. Below are links to that article, along with other resources that might help practitioners contemplating a challenge to various types of forensic evidence. [continue reading…]
Vernard Crockett v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-2320, 11/17/15
Crockett procedurally defaulted his insufficient evidence and confrontation clause claims by failing to preserve the claims at various stages of his direct appeals in state court. [continue reading…]
Bet you think the answer is obvious–it’s Abrahamson, right? Wrong! Click SCOWstats.com for the answer. While you’re at it, note the startling difference between how Sixth-Amendment arguments fare in SCOW compared with Fourth-Amendment arguments. Orin Kerr of Volokh Conspiracy fame recently did a post on the chances of a Fourth Amendment argument winning in SCOTUS. Answer: 50%. Click here. And in SCOW? 7%! Click here. Almost makes you wonder if it’s worth filing a petition for review on Fourth-Amendment issues, except that you can’t reach SCOTUS’s comparatively warm embrace without one!
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
In this case the supreme court will address an important issue about the offense of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, § 948.075(1r). The court of appeals granted McKellips a new trial on a charge under that statute, holding the jury was erroneously instructed to decide whether McKellips’s cell phone constituted a “computerized communication system” when it should have been instructed to decide whether McKellips’s uses of the phone constituted communication via a “computerized communication system.” The supreme court might also address another issue that has implications beyond § 948.075: Namely, whether instructional error that isn’t objected to at trial can be a basis for a new trial in the interest of justice. [continue reading…]
State v. Patrick K. Kozel, 2015AP656-CR, District 4, 11/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/7/16, reversed, 2017 WI 3; case activity (including briefs)
The results of a blood draw done by an EMT after Kozel was arrested for OWI were inadmissible because the State failed to prove that the blood draw was conducted by a “person acting under the direction of a physician,” as required by § 343.305(5)(b). [continue reading…]
State v. N.J., 2015AP1477 & 2015AP1478, District 1, 11/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The order terminating N.J.’s parental rights based on her failure to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6) was not invalidated by any failures by the Milwaukee Child Welfare Bureau to make reasonable efforts to reunite N.J. with her two children. [continue reading…]
Seifert v. Balink, 2015 WI App 59, petition for review granted 11/4/15; affirmed, 2017 WI 2; case activity (including briefs)
While this case involves a medical malpractice claim rather than an issue of criminal law, On Point thought it worth noting because it will be the first time the Wisconsin Supreme Court will address the admissibility of expert opinion evidence since § 907.02(1) was revamped to adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and, by extension, the interpretation of FRE 702 by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). [continue reading…]
State v. Jeffrey L. Elverman, 2015 WI App 91; case activity (including state’s brief)
The court rejects all challenges to a conviction of theft of more than $10,000. The issues mostly spring from the state’s use of Wis. Stat. § 971.36(4), which permits, under certain circumstances, the aggregation of multiple thefts into a single count. [continue reading…]
