State v. Deadwiller
2012 WI App 89
Wis. Ct. App.2012Background
- Deadwiller was convicted by jury of two counts of second-degree sexual assault with force.
- He challenges the trial court’s admission of a DNA-report relying on outside lab analysis for confrontation purposes.
- A State Crime Laboratory technician relied on Orchid Cellmark’s DNA profiles to link semen from victims Kristina S. and Chantee O. to Deadwiller.
- Orchid Cellmark’s profile reports were prepared by an outside lab; no first-hand witness testified to the lab’s methodology.
- Witucki, the Wisconsin technician, reviewed the outside lab work and testified that the semen DNA matched Deadwiller, based on his own analysis and data-bank comparison.
- The court applied Williams v. Illinois to determine whether the outside lab report was testimonial and thus barred by the Confrontation Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Orchid Cellmark report was testimonial | Deadwiller contends the report is testimonial and its use violated confrontation. | Deadwiller relies on Williams’s rationale that outside reports may be non-testimonial if not used for truth. | The report was not testimonial; confrontation rights not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. __ (2012) (outside lab report not testimonial; relied on not for truth or not testimonial)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (confrontation for testimonial statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial confrontation standard)
- State v. Ward, 337 Wis. 2d 655 (2011) (two-step process for DNA sample requests; investigative information)
- State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493 (1990) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency for elements)
- State v. Barton, 289 Wis. 2d 206 (2005) (peer review of non-testifying analyst tests; admissibility of expert reliance)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (narrow holding for fragmented Court)