State v. Landrum
In State v. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d 107, 114, 528 N.W.2d 36 (Ct. App. 1995), the Court concluded that the rule of issue preclusion embodied in the protection against double jeopardy did not bar the State from introducing, in a second trial, the testimony of the alleged victim in an earlier sexual abuse case in which the defendant was acquitted. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d at 116-17.
The Court explained:
"Although we will assume that Landrum's acquittal established that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether Landrum had sexual contact with Lisa W., the State did not have to demonstrate that Landrum had sexual contact with Lisa W. beyond a reasonable doubt in order to introduce Lisa W.'s testimony in the second trial.
Under 904.04(2), Stats., evidence of other acts is admissible if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the other act. Because a reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that Landrum had sexual contact with Lisa W., the issue preclusion component of the double jeopardy clause does not apply." (191 Wis. 2d at 117.)
In Landrum, the Court explained that the defendant's interests in not relitigating an already decided issue were adequately protected by the double jeopardy clause. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d at 118.
The Court also held that introduction of testimony from a trial in which the defendant was acquitted did not violate fundamental fairness by lowering the burden of proof because the testimony was not introduced to establish criminal liability, but for the limited purposes deemed acceptable under Wis. Stat. 904.04(2). See id.