State v. Marqus G. Phillips, 2023AP450, 10/4/23, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) That the Constitution does not guarantee an “error-free trial” is an unnecessary response to a straw man when a defendant seeks a new trial after it is discovered that the second of two state’s witnesses was found to… Read more
7. Sequestration, 906.15
State v. M.E., 2019AP2228, 9/1/2020, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity M.E. was adjudicated delinquent after a bench trial. During the trial, the judge overheard a conversation between a state’s witness and the prosecutor that led her to believe her sequestration order had been violated. M.E. argues the judge was disqualified because… Read more
X.J. v. G.G., 2015AP1549, District 3, 10/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity Under § 48.42(1), an adoptive parent may join the biological parent in a petition to terminate the parental rights of the other biological parent, and because joining the petition makes the adoptive parent a party, the adoptive parent is not subject to… Read more
State v. Derek J. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28; for Copeland: David Leeper; case activity Trial court has discretion under § 906.15(3) to order an attorney not to discuss with a sequestered witness who hasn’t yet testified the testimony of other witnesses; this authority extends to barring counsel from providing the sequestered witness with a… Read more
State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold Issue/Holding: ¶40. Green contends that the prosecutor, not the witness, violated the sequestration order by conversing with the witness during trial…. Green has not provided any support for the contention that a prosecutor violates a sequestration… Read more
State v. Aaron Evans, 2000 WI App 178, 238 Wis.2d 411, 617 N.W.2d 220 For Evans: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in preventing a DNA expert from sitting at counsel table. Holding: “|10 We are satisfied that, on this record, the circuit court did not erroneously… Read more
