State v. Stanley J. Maday, Jr.
2017 WI 28
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Victim K.L., age 11, wrote a letter alleging three incidents of sexual assault by Stanley Maday; police arranged a videotaped forensic "cognitive graphic" interview conducted by social worker Catherine Gainey.
- At trial K.L. testified and read her letter; defense highlighted inconsistencies between trial testimony and the videotaped interview.
- Defense called Gainey, who described the cognitive graphic interview technique, her training, truth-lie discussion, and that she looks for indications of coaching or dishonesty.
- Prosecutor asked Gainey on cross: whether there was any indication K.L. had been coached, and whether there was any indication K.L. was not being honest; Gainey answered “No” to both; defense did not object.
- Maday was convicted; on postconviction he argued ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) failing to object to Gainey’s answers (Haseltine vouching rule) and (2) withdrawing an objection to testimony about his corrections-officer weapons/use-of-force training. The circuit court denied relief; the court of appeals reversed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maday) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gainey’s testimony that she observed no indications of coaching or dishonesty violated Haseltine (expert vouching) | Testimony impermissibly vouched for K.L.’s credibility; counsel was ineffective for not objecting | Testimony was limited to observable "indications" during a forensic interview, did not opine on truth, and assisted the jury | No Haseltine violation; testimony admissible because it was limited to observations, not a subjective opinion, and could aid the jury; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object to Gainey’s testimony was deficient performance under Strickland | Failure to object was deficient and prejudiced outcome | Counsel not deficient because testimony was admissible; even if law unsettled, no duty to object to every arguable error | Counsel’s performance not deficient re: Gainey; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Whether withdrawing objection to Maday’s job training evidence rendered counsel ineffective | Admission of irrelevant training evidence prejudiced Maday | Evidence was non-prejudicial and commonly inferable given Maday’s job as corrections officer | Assuming deficiency, no prejudice — training evidence did not undermine confidence in verdict; no ineffective assistance |
| Whether improper expert credibility testimony (if any) requires reversal given totality of evidence | Erroneous admission of vouching testimony in a credibility contest is prejudicial and warrants new trial | No improper testimony; jury instructions and total evidence support verdict | No reversible error; conviction stands and court of appeals reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92 (Ct. App.) (expert may not opine that another competent witness is telling the truth)
- State v. Jensen, 147 Wis. 2d 240 (expert testimony may describe victim behavior patterns to aid jury but must not convey belief in veracity)
- State v. Krueger, 314 Wis. 2d 605 (Ct. App.) (forensic-interviewer testimony about objective signs of coaching may be admissible but must avoid opining on truthfulness)
- State v. Romero, 147 Wis. 2d 264 (expert must not usurp jury’s credibility role)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)