Confrontation and Criminal Trials: What’s Actually in Play

The long-awaited Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts finally came down on June 25, 2009.  See my prior post here.  Neither the majority opinion nor the dissent yield many clues about what took so long (this was the last case from the Court’s November sitting), and on the surface at least there is little that is portentous.  Yet the case is ultimately about far more than hearsay evidence in criminal trials.  It reveals significant discord about the nature of the modern adversary trial as well as skepticism over the use of science in the courtroom. 

The case addressed whether the government may introduce a crime laboratory report (hearsay) against a defendant without calling as a witness the analyst who performed the test.  The Court held that such reports are manufactured expressly for use at trial against the defendant; hence, they constitute “testimonial hearsay” that cannot be introduced without the declarant (the lab analyst) on the witness stand, available for cross-examination.

Continue ReadingConfrontation and Criminal Trials: What’s Actually in Play

Prior Conviction as an Element of a Crime: The Effect of Stipulations After State v. Warbelton

In January of this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the defendant’s conviction for stalking in State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, 759 N.W.2d 557.  In doing so, the court held that a defendant in a stalking case cannot prevent the State from submitting evidence of the existence of the defendant’s prior violent felony conviction, an element of the crime, by stipulating to the conviction before trial.   

Stipulations to prior convictions became a powerful tool for defense attorneys in Wisconsin following State v. McAllister, 153 Wis. 2d 523, 451 N.W.2d 764 (Ct. App. 1989).  A precursor to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Old Chief v. United States, the McAllister court held that the State could not submit evidence of the details of the defendant’s prior felony conviction if the defendant offered to stipulate to that element before trial.  The court concluded that the details of the conviction were no longer relevant once the defendant stipulated to it.  The State could satisfy the element by submitting a certified record of the defendant’s conviction to the jury. 

The court in State v. Alexander addressed the derivative question left by McAllister: may the defendant completely prevent the jury from considering the prior conviction element by stipulating to the prior conviction before trial? 

Continue ReadingPrior Conviction as an Element of a Crime: The Effect of Stipulations After State v. Warbelton

New Issue of Marquette Law Review

The Summer 2009 issue of the Marquette Law Review (vol. 92, no. 4) is now available on-line.  Congratulations to the editors of Volume 92 for a job well done.  Here are the contents of the new issue, with individual links to each article:

BARROCK LECTURE

THE LEGITIMACY OF POLICE AMONG YOUNG AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEN
Tracey Meares

HALLOWS LECTURE

BEYOND DECISIONAL TEMPLATES: THE ROLE OF IMAGINATIVE JUSTICE IN THE TRIAL COURT
The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker

ARTICLES

DRAINING THE MORASS: ENDING THE JURISPRUDENTIALLY UNSOUND UNPUBLICATION SYSTEM
David R. Cleveland

THE DISAPPOINTED EXPECTATIONS TEST AND THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE
Ralph C. Anzivino

INFORMATIONAL BLACKMAIL: SURVIVED BY TECHNICALITY?
Chen Yehudai

COMMENT

“SLICING A SHADOW”: THE DEBATE OVER COMBINED REPORTING AND ITS EFFECT ON WISCONSIN’S BUSINESS CLIMATE
Staci Flinchbaugh

NOTE

JAMIE S. V. MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: URBAN CHALLENGES CAUSE SYSTEMIC VIOLATIONS OF THE IDEA
Amy L. MacArdy

SPEECH

LAW REVIEW ANNUAL BANQUET: THE JOY OF LAW
The Honorable William C. Griesbach

Continue ReadingNew Issue of Marquette Law Review