Opinion ID: 1660871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of Preliminary Examination.

Text: At the preliminary examination, the magistrate refused to permit counsel for defendant to call defendant's mother-in-law as a witness. She was present in court but had not been subpoenaed as a witness. Sec. 954.08 (1), Stats., [3] gives the defendant the right to call witnesses. In State v. Miller (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 454, 478, 151 N. W. 2d 157, it was stated that Wisconsin does not recognize a right in defendant to pretrial discovery of the prosecution's evidence. In the case now under consideration, there is no indication in the record that defendant intended to call his mother-in-law in order to effect pretrial discovery of the state's evidence. Likewise, there is no indication that defendant's purposes were not defensive in nature. In keeping with the provisions of sec. 954.08 (1), Stats., and considering the record now before us, the magistrate should have permitted defendant's counsel to call defendant's mother-in-law as a witness. The ruling not to permit her to testify was contra to the expressed language of the statute. However, in examining defendant's brief we note that on June 18, 1965, a writ of habeas corpus was brought to the circuit court for Milwaukee county upon the apparent grounds that defendant did not have a proper preliminary examination. The brief further states that the circuit judge before whom the writ was brought issued a written decision determining that the defendant was legally detained under and by virtue of a valid order of commitment. Defendant's proper remedy was an appeal from the order denying the writ of habeas corpus and the time for such an appeal has long expired. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.