Wisconsin Judgment Day, the Sequel

Justice Jon P. Wilcox, for the majority: [W]e reverse the circuit court's decision as to the applicability of the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine. Today, we explicitly adopt this doctrine whereby a defendant is deemed to have lost the right to object on confrontation grounds to the admissibility of out-of-court statements of a declarant whose unavailability the defendant has caused. As such, the case must be remanded to the circuit court for a determination of whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, Jensen caused Julie's unavailability, thereby forfeiting his right to confrontation.

It was Butler, in his dissent, who took the narrower view, arguing for a stricter interpretation of the U.S. Constitution:

Butler: The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not state that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him [or her], except in homicide cases." While other courts may feel free to disregard the very principles upon which the Confrontation Clause rests, our decision must be limited by the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court decisions interpreting it. ...

Jensen, after a seven-week trial that was followed by the national media (which dubbed it the "letter from the grave" case), was convicted and sentenced to life without parole. But he could get a chance for a new trial. The U.S. Supreme Court, still grappling with the issue of forfeiture by wrongdoing, will hear a case next month in which the accused, charged with murdering his ex-girlfriend, claims that the use of evidence of a police conversation with the victim before her death violates his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause right. The court's ruling in Giles v. California is expected by the end of June.

Perhaps ironically, the prosecutor of the Jensen case, Robert Jambois, is a Butler supporter. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce "is being completely hypocritical here," he said, "going after Justice Butler as being too liberal, when he did in this case what they say they want all justices to do, which is follow the Constitution."

"Shadowy Group" Reemerges!
Remember the "shadowy groups" condemned by the Gableman ad earlier in this article? This is most likely a reference to the Greater Wisconsin Committee, which is out with a new radio ad once again questioning Gableman's ethics. (We've already reviewed one of its earlier TV offerings.)