Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Wis. high court rules Confrontation Clause not violated

By: Eric Heisig//July 16, 2013//

Wis. high court rules Confrontation Clause not violated

By: Eric Heisig//July 16, 2013//

Listen to this article

wissupreme courtA Wisconsin Supreme Court decision issued Tuesday says DNA evidence collected during a criminal investigation can be used in a trial, even if the person who analyzed the evidence is not the one that testifies.

The opinion, penned by Justice Annette Ziegler, states that the trial rights of Richard Deadwiller were not violated when a Wisconsin Crime Laboratory analyst testified to the findings of a DNA test done by a private firm.

Deadwiller, 53, is serving a 30-year prison sentence after a Milwaukee County jury found him guilty of forcibly raping two women in 2006.

He appealed, saying the analyst’s testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says a defendant has the right to cross-examine witnesses who bring evidence against them, such as the analyst who actually matched his DNA to the evidence collected from both women.

The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in July 2012 and the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

During the trial, Deadwiller testified that the sex was consensual, and he did not contest the DNA evidence. But even if it was an error to allow this testimony, the court says, the error was “harmless in light of the defendant’s previous admissions of sexual intercourse with the victims.”

Deadwiller’s case, according to the opinion, had similar circumstances to Williams vs. Illinois, which was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

In that case, the highest court issued the same ruling, though the vote was split 5-4 and did not give clear guidance on how lower courts should handle similar cases.

But that split may be a good reason for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the Confrontation Clause issue, said Jeffrey Szczewski, a criminal defense lawyer with Kuchler & Cotton S.C.

“That’s why I tend to think that they would want the opportunity to correct themselves, to clarify what the state of the law actually is,” Szczewski said.

The Waukesha attorney said issues such as the one in Deadwiller’s case will most likely come up more often as DNA evidence and other advances in crime scene investigation come up.

The issues arise from showing a jury that the evidence was handled correctly, and not just taking another analyst’s word for it.

“If the only person who tested (evidence) is someone who didn’t testify, then that is a problem from the defense and constitutional scholars,” he said. “Who is the person the jury should be looking at to see if this is accurate or not?”

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests