On Point blog, page 1 of 2
SCOW will address confrontation, harmlessness, and corroboration rule
State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2020AP32, petition for review of a published decision granted 1/11/2022; affirmed 2/21/23; case activity (including briefs)
Issues presented (from the petition):
Whether the Court of Appeals applied the wrong standard in determining that admission of DNA evidence in violation of [Thomas’s] right of Confrontation was harmless?
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that [Thomas’s] confession to a sexual assault was corroborated by a significant fact?
Are constitutional errors really ever harmless?
This new law review article by Daniel Epps examine the subject in depth. Consider this excerpt from the abstract:
Judges and commentators sharply disagree about which (and even whether) constitutional errors can be harmless, how to conduct harmless-error when it analysis applies, and, most fundamentally, what harmless constitutional error even is-what source of law generates it and enables the Supreme Court to require its use by state courts. This Article offers a new theory of harmless constitutional error,
No felony witness intimidation without proof of felony charges
State v. Gary Abdullah Salaam, 2014AP2666-CR & 2667-CR, 9/13/2016, District 1 (Not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Salaam raises four claims challenging his convictions, at jury trial, of recklessly endangering safety, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and three counts of witness intimidation. The court affirms as to the first two counts but finds insufficient evidence as to the witness intimidation charges.
How to beat the “harmless error” rap
For the 2015 SPD conference, Judge Sankovitz and Attorneys Rob Henak and Melinda Swartz prepared an excellent outline on a problem that plagues many defense lawyers on appeal. They have a great issue. They win it, but then the court of appeals or supreme court finds the error harmless. This detailed, well-researched outline walks you through the history of the “harmless error” doctrine and offers ideas for how to beat it in various situations.
Seventh Circuit affirms grant of habeas relief, finds harmless error analysis done by Wisconsin Court of Appeals to be unreasonable
Mark D. Jensen v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1380, 9/8/15, affirming Jensen v. Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013)
At Jensen’s trial for the murder of his wife Julie the State introduced Julie’s handwritten letter to the police, written two weeks before her death, in which she wrote she would never take her life and that her husband should be the suspect if anything should happen to her. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals assumed the admission of the letter violated Jensen’s right to confrontation but found the error harmless. The Seventh Circuit holds that the court of appeals’ decision was an unreasonable application of the Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), harmless error standard, and that the erroneous admission of the hearsay evidence had a substantial and injurious influence or effect in determining the jury’s verdict, thus satisfying the actual prejudice standard under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993).
Trial court erred in relying on the abrogated “interlocking confession” doctrine to deny severance of co-defendants’ trials
State v. John M. Navigato, 2012AP2108-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
State v. Teddy W. Bieker, 2012AP2693-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The circuit court, relying on the district attorney’s assertion of the so-called “interlocking confessions” doctrine, denied Navigato’s and Bieker’s motions to sever their trials on homicide,
Federal district court grants habeas relief based on violation of Confrontation Clause; calls Wisconsin court’s harmless error analysis “a sterilized, post-hoc rationalization for upholding the result”
Mark D. Jensen v. James Schwochert, No. 11-C-0803 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013)
Judge William Griesbach of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, has ordered a new trial for Mark Jensen, who was convicted of killing his wife Julie based in part on the use of oral and written statements she made before her death in which she told police she suspected her husband was trying to kill her.
Confrontation – Generally – Forfeiture by Wrongdoing – Harmless Error; Other Acts Evidence: Pornography (& Intent to Kill); Consent to Search; Judicial Bias
State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply
Confrontation – Generally
The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,
State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2009AP25, Wis SCt rev Granted 9/24/10
decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Rhodes: John J. Grau
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness in cross-examination was infringed, and, if so, whether the infringement was harmless error.
Homicide case, tried on State’s theory Rhodes had motive to kill victim for beating Rhodes’ sister; court of appeals reversed because trial judge cut off cross-examination that Rhodes did not react violently in response to prior harm inflicted by victim on sister.
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Test – Confrontation
State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose
Issue/Holding: Confrontation error deemed harmful, where the following evinced the tainted evidence’s impact: prosecutor’s litigation strategy, ¶51; jury’s reaction (which included repeated requests to have tainted testimony read back;