Chad lurvey trial 2011

Were there any drugs found in the hunting shack? Q: And you searched that on - - on or about September 10 of , is that correct?

Q: Had it been searched prior to September 10 of to the best of your knowledge? Maryland, U. Lurvey argues that the State's question implied a positive alert by the drug dog which he was unable to impeach without the dog's records. He asserts that the implicit alert undermined the theory of defense by supporting Kevin Cassidy's testimony that Lurvey had cocaine on his property after August 24, State v.

The admission of evidence pursuant to a discovery violation does not automatically entitle the defendant to a new trial. To result in a new trial, the violation must be without good cause and prejudicial to the defendant. A Brady violation occurs where the State withholds exculpatory, material evidence from a defendant. We reject Lurvey's claim for two reasons: 1 there was never actually any drug dog testimony concerning the shack; and 2 Lurvey has failed to demonstrate that the drug dog records were exculpatory or that the State's failure to provide them was prejudicial.

Taylor v. State, 52 Wis. Edwardsen, Wis. Contrary to Lurvey's assertion, the State's unanswered question did not "elicit[] the prejudicial implication that a drug dog reacted to cocaine previously stored in the hunting shack.

Ruff testified that no drugs were discovered in the shack. Any implication that she considered the shack suspicious derived from her testimony that it could have been used to store cocaine or marijuana and that though it contained only junk, it was secured with a padlock. That the jury asked whether police ever searched for drugs "in and around" the shed undermines Lurvey's assertion of an implicit alert.

The State never mentioned any canine search in closing or rebuttal. Cassidy never testified that Lurvey obtained the postdisappearance cocaine from the hunting shack. There was testimony that at various times Lurvey stored cocaine throughout his property in buried paint buckets. A positive alert on the shack was not inconsistent with Lurvey's statement that he had recently moved the cocaine into his basement and would not have "completely destroyed the credibility of Lurvey's claim of innocence.

The drug dog records are not part of the appellate record and though Lurvey has described the sorts of impeachment questions he might have asked, nothing suggests that the answers would have been exculpatory.

Harris, Wis. DelReal, Wis. Even assuming a discovery violation, on this record any prejudice to Lurvey is purely speculative. Lurvey has failed to demonstrate both that the drug dog records were materially exculpatory and that the State had a duty to provide them.

Where an alleged discovery violation is not prejudicial, the trial court's failure to impose sanctions is harmless. Given that there was no discovery violation and that even assuming a violation there was no prejudice, the trial court properly declined to order sanctions.

Lurvey's Due Process rights were not violated by testimony that Christopher Long and Kevin Cassidy believed he was responsible for the homicides. With regard to Long, Lurvey cites the following:. Q: [by the State] Well, Chris, I think it's been evident that you believed Chad Lurvey was responsible for your brother's death, is that right?

Rather, on cross-examination trial counsel reinforced for the jury Long's belief that Lurvey was responsible:. Q: [by trial counsel] By the time of the meeting at Chad's place on [August] 31st, the search party, if you will, you had come to the conclusion that Chad had done something to your brother, correct? Q: Before finding the car at Fox Run [bowling alley], you thought that maybe it was Brian [Lazzaro], is that correct?

Q: Please turn to page of your transcript, line So what's the consensus of the group that's out there. Where is Brian, where is Andy. Consensus is that they still think it's totally Chad, and then so after this happens, now I think it's Chad too. And I think that these people, the Lazzaros, know a heck of a lot more than I do about this situation. See State v.

Haseltine, Wis. See also State v. Romero, Wis. The credibility of a witness is ordinarily a jury determination. However, comment on a witness's credibility is not improper where "neither the purpose nor the effect of the testimony" is to attest to the witness's truthfulness.

Smith, Wis. The Smith Court also considered the opinion testimony harmless because the officer's belief was already apparent to the jury given the context of the case. The testimony served not to prove Lurvey's untruthfulness, but to explain Long's actions in confronting Lurvey and withholding information from the police after his brother's disappearance.

Further, Long's belief in Lurvey's potential guilt was already apparent from his testimony that Lurvey provided inconsistent stories about the events of August 24, , Long eventually confronted Lurvey and "told him that I wanted him to walk me through from the minute my brother got to his house to the minute that my brother left his house because it doesn't make sense and why can't he give me any clear explanation or details," he threatened to "bury" Lurvey with evidence of his drug involvement if he did not provide a more complete story, and he searched the Lurvey property with the Lazzaros.

As in Smith, there was no "risk that the jury used [Long's] testimony to assess [Lurvey's] truthfulness, particularly when the jury was instructed that it was the sole judge of the witnesses' credibility at the trial. Though Lurvey argues that no objection was required to preserve the viability of the pretrial order, he fails to explain why he never complained to the trial court out of the jury's presence.

Lurvey drew attention to Long's opinion during cross-examination and argued during closing that Long's statements to law enforcement lacked credibility because they were colored by this opinion. Trial counsel also elicited from other State's witnesses that early on in the investigation they believed Lurvey was involved.

During cross, Lurvey alerted the State and the court of his intent to question Cassidy about a failed polygraph examination. The State objected, explaining that the jury would be left with an inference that "somehow Mr. Cassidy is responsible for something because he didn't pass a polygraph.

The trial court determined that Lurvey could ask about the failed polygraph, but warned that this might open the door on rebuttal. Lurvey questioned Cassidy about the polygraph, elicting that the police had asked whether he was involved in or had information about the homicides, that Cassidy told them no, and that police told Cassidy he had not done well on the examination.

The list was found during the investigation. While authorities don't know where the killings occurred, Schimel told the jury he believes it was at a shed on Lurvey property near the lake where the bodies were found. In attempting to explain why investigators found no blood, DNA or other evidence there of the killings, Schimel told the jury that "we don't have a crime scene because Chad Lurvey had a two-week start before we knew we had a crime scene.

Lurvey was charged in July with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide in the deaths of Lazzaro and Long. It took investigators that much time to gather evidence, including holding a secret John Doe hearing, against him. The bodies of Lazzaro and Long, both 25, were found in a 6-acre private lake on property in Ottawa owned by Lurvey's family.

Lazzaro's body was found floating on the lake on Sept. Long's body surfaced a day later while sheriff's deputies were watching the area as they awaited a search warrant. Lazzaro and Long had been missing since Aug. Lurvey returned alone that day, according to court records and trial testimony.

The Durango was found abandoned in Waukesha. Lazzaro and Long had been shot multiple times with a shotgun and their necks were cut, according to the criminal complaint and testimony.

Both bodies were shrouded in moving blankets and chains typically used for towing or securing cargo, records show. Waukesha - A judge on Friday morning denied a request for a mistrial in the case of a man accused of killing two people nearly nine years ago in an alleged dispute over drugs and money. He is charged with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide in the shotgun killings of Brian Lazzaro of Mukwonago and Andrew Long of West Milwaukee. Lazzaro and Long, both 25, disappeared on Aug.

Stephen P. Opper was eliciting testimony from Waukesha County Sheriff's Capt. Karen Ruff about whether a hunting shack on Lurvey's property could have been used to store marijuana and cocaine. The shack is near the lake where Lazzaro's and Long's bodies were found floating and wrapped in blankets and chains. When Opper asked Ruff whether a drug-sniffing dog had detected the presence of drugs at the shack during a search there, Hurley objected and sought the mistrial.