By: dmc-admin//July 1, 2002//
“[I]f the recantation evidence satisfies the test in McCallum, any application of issue preclusion to exclude this evidence from Sorenson’s ch. 980 trial would be fundamentally unfair to Sorenson under the fifth standard set forth in Michelle T. Fundamental unfairness results because Sorenson, assuming the recantation meets the McCallum test, has a due process interest in gaining admission at trial of this newly discovered evidence to ensure accurate expert opinions on his mental disorder and future dangerousness in his ch. 980 trial. In this case, the experts’ opinions reveal that they were based heavily on the fact that Sorenson committed the underlying crime. As a result, due process and fundamental fairness require the introduction of this evidence.”
Affirmed.
Review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Bablitch, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: T. Christopher Kelly, Madison
For Respondent: Warren D. Weinstein, James E. Doyle, Madison