State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez, 856 N.W.2d 580

Ramon Gonzalez, an inmate nicknamed "Platinum," was charged and convicted of battery by a prisoner as a party to a crime after an assault in the Milwaukee County Jail.
Identification was disputed; defense challenged whether grainy video and witness statements sufficed to identify Gonzalez as an attacker.
Victim and officers gave testimony linking the assailant to Cell 10 and to an inmate with platinum teeth; Gonzalez was housed in Cell 10 and had platinum teeth.
During trial, over defense objection, the circuit court ordered Gonzalez to display his teeth to the jury; Gonzalez complied by smiling.
Postconviction relief was denied, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to decide whether compelling Gonzalez to show his teeth violated the Self‑Incrimination Clause or was otherwise inadmissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether compelling Gonzalez to display his teeth violated the privilege against self‑incrimination	Gonzalez: the platinum teeth conveyed a "testimonial" message (a "fierce" appearance) that revealed mental content or encouraged adverse inferences, so displaying them was testimonial and protected	State: teeth are physical, non‑testimonial evidence (like tattoos/scars); showing them is body‑as‑evidence and not Fifth Amendment testimony	Held: No Fifth Amendment violation — teeth are physical evidence that do not reveal the contents of the mind and thus are non‑testimonial
Whether the in‑court display of teeth was material/probative or impermissibly cumulative	Gonzalez: other identification evidence (victim ID, cell assignment) made showing teeth immaterial and thus inadmissible	State: identity was central and the teeth were probative corroborating identification; trial court has discretion to admit corroborative evidence	Held: Admissible — the teeth were material and probative to identity; trial court acted within discretion

United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (recognizes act‑of‑production testimonial risk where defendant must use his mind to identify/produce materials)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (distinguishes testimonial communications from use of the body as physical evidence)
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (some compelled responses reveal mental content and can be testimonial)
Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (testimonial evidence defined as revealing thoughts, beliefs, or knowledge)
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (act of production has communicative aspects but may be non‑testimonial depending on context)