On Point blog, page 3 of 5
Antonio Jones v. Basinger, 7th Cir No. 09-3577, 3/31/11
7th circuit court of appeals decision
Habeas – Certificate of Appealability
We pause briefly to note the district court’s error in denying a certificate of appealability in this case. The statute provides that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,
Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation
Gordon Sussman v. Jenkins, 7th Cir No. 09-3940, 4/1/11
7th circuit decision, granting habeas relief in State v. Sussman, 2007AP687-CR; in chambers opinion on stay
Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation
The state court unreasonably restricted Sussman’s cross-examination of his chief accuser, and thus violated his right to confrontation, by precluding him from inquiring into the complainant’s prior false allegations of sexual misconduct.
Cross-Examination – Limitations – Witness’s Mental Health; Inadequate Argumentation – Loss of Argument
State v. Anthony M. Smith, 2009AP2867-CR, District 1/4, 3/3/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Smith: Rodney Cubbie, Syovata K. Edari; case activity
Trial court’s limitations on cross-examination with respect to State witness’s “prior mental condition” or use of medications (prescribed for his Bipolar Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder) upheld as proper exercise of discretion. The witness was taking his medication at the time of the alleged offense,
Confrontation – Statements Made to Police During “Ongoing Emergency” not “Testimonial” Hearsay
Michigan v. Bryant, USSC No. 09-150
At respondent Richard Bryant’s trial, the court admitted statements that the victim, Anthony Covington, made to police officers who discovered him mortally wounded in a gas station parking lot. … We hold that the circumstances of the interaction between Covington and the police objectively indicate that the “primary purpose of the interrogation” was “to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.” Davis,
Irving L. Cross v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 09-1666, 1/13/11
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 testimony could be read to the jury at Cross’s re-trial.
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,
Confrontation: Forfeiture Doctrine – Witness Unavailability; Authentication – Telephone Recording; Appellate Jurisdiction
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 witness from testifying.
¶39 Therefore,
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.
TPR – Right to Subpoena Parent’s Child
Jeffrey J. v. David D., 2010AP1717, District 3, 9/28/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for David D.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate
Parent’s right to confrontation was satisfied by in-chambers discussion between judge and children during which they spoke in favor of termination, where their father killed their mother and grandparents, and the judge reasonably determined that they would suffer emotional harm if required to submit to face to face confrontation.
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, cert grant 9/28/10
Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court)
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.
Cert. Petition
Follow-up to Melendez-Diaz v.