I had the privilege of having a great trial attorney fighting to prove my innocence. But yet that didn’t matter because my Judge (Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Christopher T. Dee), turned my case into a case more favorable for the prosecution. It has been well established for decades now that defendants have a constitutional right to have an attorney present during live lineup prosecution procedures. See: United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224-26, 236-37 (1967). The consequences for violating this constitutional right is suppression of any identifications that may have resulted from the live lineup See: Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 272 (1967).
Despite this law being well established for decades now, Milwaukee Police Detectives conducted a live lineup without my attorney present. Once my attorney brought this up to my Judge via Motion to Suppress the identification that resulted from the live lineup, the Judge refused to suppress the identification and allowed the prosecution to present it at my trial.
Then on top of that, the victim who was shot in my case had 2 prior opportunities to identify me as the person who shot her (before my trial), but she never did identify me. But yet the Judge allowed the prosecution to introduce speculative testimony at my trial that insinuates that she identified me as the person who shot her (when she did not in fact, ever identify me).
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed that my rights was violated in my case but upheld my conviction under the harmless error doctrine. The harmless error doctrine is a judicially created doctrine that allows the prosecution and the courts to violate criminal defendants rights in criminal cases without any consequences. This harmless error doctrine has resulted in thousands of peoples constitutional rights being violated in the courts because prosecutors and judges know they can get away with violating peoples constitutional rights under the harmless error doctrine.
Therefore, prosecutors and judges often tip the scales in the prosecutions favor because the harmless error doctrine allows them to violate criminal defendants rights on a regular basis, resulting in convictions, all to often on innocent people. State Legislators and Congress should enact laws prohibiting the use of the harmless error doctrine because it has become obvious that prosecutors and the courts will violate criminal defendants rights because they know they can get away with it under the harmless error doctrine.
Thank you for taking the time to read my story. Sincerely, Jonathan D. Wilke.
Judge:
Christopher T. Dee
Milwaukee County
Wisconsin
