State v. Sellhausen, 809 N.W.2d 14

Defendant Sharon Sellhausen was tried for battery on a law enforcement officer and disorderly conduct.
The circuit court judge’s daughter-in-law was in the pool of potential jurors but did not sit on the final jury.
Defense used a peremptory strike to remove the daughter-in-law from the jury; no strike for cause was renewed.
The circuit court had conversed with counsel about the daughter-in-law’s potential involvement and did not automatically strike her.
The court of appeals held that presiding judges must sua sponte remove their immediate family members from the panel; the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed.
The issue also preserved an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be reviewed on remand at the court of appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a new trial is required where a defendant used a peremptory strike on a judge’s immediate family member.	Sellhausen argues per se error due to lack of sua sponte removal of family member.	Sellhausen relies on Lindell to show that a peremptory strike curing the error suffices.	No new trial required; Lindell applies.
Whether Lindell’s harmless error standard applies to this case or whether Tody requires automatic reversal.	Lindell may not apply; Tody requires automatic remedy for family-member juror.	Lindell’s framework remains applicable; no automatic reversal.	Lindell governs; no reversal.
Whether appearance of impropriety from judge’s handling of the family-member juror mandates reversal.	Appearances of impropriety justify reversal.	Appearances may be mitigated; no reversal given fair trial.	Not warrants reversal; appearance concerns not enough.
Whether defense counsel’s use of a peremptory strike harmed the defendant beyond Lindell’s scope.	Perceived adversarial dynamic could affect trial.	No demonstrated impairment of substantial rights.	Not harmed; Lindell controls.

State v. Lindell, 245 Wis.2d 689 (Wis. 2001) (harmless-error approach; peremptory strike can cure circuit court error without automatic reversal)
State v. Ramos, 211 Wis.2d 12 (Wis. 1997) (automatic reversal if a juror should have been excused for cause)
State v. Tody, 316 Wis.2d 689 (Wis. 2009) (discussed inherent authority to strike family member; concurring views debated)
Pool v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 94 Wis. 447 (Wis. 1896) (permissible to consider whether error was prejudicial when exhausted challenges occur)
State v. Faucher, 227 Wis.2d 700 (Wis. 1999) (waiver/claims related to juror challenges)
State v. Gesch, 167 Wis.2d 660 (Wis. 1992) (waiver of peremptory challenges for cause; harmless-error framework)