Criminal Procedure — discovery

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — discovery

Even if it was a violation for the State not to disclose statements the defendant made to a witness, the violation was harmless.

“We conclude that even assuming that the State was required to disclose Lock’s statements to McCray before trial, and even if the State failed to establish good cause for its omission, its failure to do so was harmless. See id. The jury heard that McCray was a disgruntled ex-girlfriend who was receiving substantial consideration from the federal government for her cooperation in the case against Lock. Furthermore, the entirety of her testimony was that Lock told her he knew the bodies were in the backyard but that ‘he didn’t do it.’ Lock did not explain his role in the deaths or otherwise elaborate on how Melendez-Rivas or Chaney died. As we have already established, there were several other vastly more reliable witnesses at the trial who testified as eyewitnesses to Lock’s role in the crimes.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP699-CR State v. Lock

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Wagner, J., Brennan, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Buting, Jerome F., Brookfield; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Weber, Gregory M., Madison