Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

09-1666 Cross v. Hardy

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 13, 2011

09-1666 Cross v. Hardy

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 13, 2011

Habeas Corpus
Confrontation Clause

Where the state failed to subpoena the complainant in a sexual assault trial, instead reading her testimony from the first trial into the record, the defendant’s right to confront the witness was violated.
“We do not lightly reach our conclusion that the state court unreasonably applied federal law, but under the circumstances of this case, where A.S.’s testimony was critical and the state neglected to subpoena her despite knowing that she was extremely reluctant to testify, we find that the state did not sufficiently demonstrate that it acted in good faith. Similarly, the state’s duplicative efforts and its failure to more thoroughly investigate were also insufficient to protect Cross’s Sixth Amendment rights. As such, the state trial court and appellate court unreasonably applied federal law in determining that A.S. was unavailable.”

Reversed.

09-1666 Cross v. Hardy

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Hibbler, J., Williams, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Justice Protasiewicz recuse herself on gerrymandering cases that go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests