State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller
834 N.W.2d 362
Wis.2013Background
- Deadwiller charged with two counts of second-degree sexual assault by use of force based on July and August 2006 assaults.
- DNA from vaginal/cervical swabs matched to Orchid Cellmark, an out-of-state lab; Witucki at SCL testified about Orchid results and matched Deadwiller.
- Orchid's testimony was not presented; no Orchid witnesses testified at trial.
- Defendant argued his Confrontation Clause rights were violated by Witucki relying on Orchid's DNA profiles.
- Defendant's defense was that intercourse occurred but was consensual; he admitted to sexual activity and did not challenge DNA results.
- Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed; Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review; majority held no Confrontation Clause violation and, alternatively, harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause violation from Witucki relying on Orchid DNA profiles | Deadwiller claims Witucki impermissibly relied on Orchid’s profiles. | State argues Williams controls; profiles not testimonial. | No Confrontation Clause violation (majority reasoning). |
| Harmlessness of any Confrontation Clause error | If error occurred, it affected defense strategy. | Error would not change outcome due to consent defense and prior admissions. | Harmless error; verdict would be same. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes core Confrontation Clause rule)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S._ (2012) (DNA-related testimony; plurality framework)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (forensic report testimonial)
- State v. Williams, 253 Wis. 2d 99 (2002) (Wisconsin confrontation precedent)
- State v. Barton, 289 Wis. 2d 206 (2006) (Wisconsin confrontation precedent)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (plurality decision framework for Williams-type cases)