Even though a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling from last week resolved conflicting case law governing the admissibility of certain toxicology reports, criminal-law practitioners say it did little to answer questions over testimonial hearsay.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that certain toxicology reports may be admitted at trial without testimony from or cross-examination of the authors of those reports without violating the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause.

The Court of Appeals has affirmed that it's not only the rules of evidence that do not apply in criminal pretrial proceedings; equally inapplicable is the right of confrontation.

A 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.

If a Wisconsin defendant on trial for two sexual assaults cannot cross-examine the out-of-state lab analyst who prepared his underlying DNA profiles, have his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause been violated?

A federal appeals court decided Wednesday that a confidential informant could wear a wig and fake mustache when he testified against an alleged member of a Mexican drug cartel.

12-1672 Dietrich v. Smith

2010AP2012-CR State v. Pringle

2011AP2549-CR State v. Elim

11-2201 U.S. v. Garvey

2010AP2363-CR & 2010AP2364-CR State v. Deadwiller

The Confrontation Clause does not bar an expert from testifying at a criminal trial that a DNA profile produced by an outside laboratory matched the defendant’s state lab DNA profile, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a fractured opinion.

10-8505 Williams v. Illinois

2010AP3122-CR State v. Bohanan

2011AP38-CR, 2011AP39-CR State v. Jacobson

2011AP532-CR State v. Howland

11-74 Hardy v. Cross

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have already looked at the issue of DNA evidence in criminal cases, with several rulings restricting prosecutors’ ability to admit such data without calling the lab analysts who prepared the tests to testify.

Here’s an intriguing twist to the common Confrontation Clause scenarios that criminal defense attorneys grapple with every day.

Despite evidence that the police withheld exculpatory evidence and witnesses were not truthful at trial, a state prisoner convicted in 1994 of sexual assault and attempted homicide will not get a new trial.

2010AP2091-CR State v. Torres

Motor Vehicles OWI; Confrontation Clause

Criminal Procedure Confrontation Clause

I don’t know if Casey Anthony killed her daughter or not, but I am confident that primetime television drama helped her to walk.

Motor Vehicles OWI; Confrontation Clause The Confrontation Clause does not permit the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification, made in order to prove a fact at a criminal trial, through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification or personally perform or observe the performance of the test reported in the ...

Criminal Procedure Out-of-court identifications; self-representation; Confrontation Clause Steven Johnson, pro se, appeals a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery by threat of force pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 943.32(1)(b) (2007-08). Johnson sets forth numerous grounds for his appeal, all of which are wholly without merit. For the reasons which follow, we affirm. Not recommended ...

The exception to the hearsay rule for dying declarations does not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Criminal Procedure Confrontation Clause; dying declarations Admission of dying declarations does not violate the right to confrontation. “As the court of appeals noted, ‘the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the confrontation right does not apply “where an exception to the confrontation right was recognized at the time of the founding.”’ Beauchamp concedes that the dying declaration exception was an established hearsay ...

An April 1 opinion from the 7th Circuit creates a conundrum for state courts when criminal defense attorneys fail to follow the rules for submitting evidence the alleged victim in a sexual assault case has made false allegations before.

Criminal Procedure Confrontation Clause Tony Colunga appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of first-degree sexual assault of a child. He argues: (1) that the circuit court violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him when it limited his cross-examination of the victim and a social worker who interviewed the victim about the assault; and (2) that ...