State v. Molde (2025): Wisconsin Supreme Court Declares Statistical False-Report Evidence Does Not Breach the Haseltine Anti-Vouching Rule

Introduction

State of Wisconsin v. Jobert L. Molde

In 2025 WI 21 the Wisconsin Supreme Court confronted the delicate boundary between helpful expert testimony and impermissible “vouching” for a witness’s credibility. The Court unanimously reversed the court of appeals and held that generalized statistical evidence concerning the rarity of false child-sexual-assault disclosures does not violate the long-standing Haseltine rule. Because a Haseltine objection would have lacked merit, the defendant’s derivative ineffective-assistance claim likewise failed.

The decision creates a clear new precedent: statistical testimony—standing alone and not explicitly applied to the complainant—may be admitted even when it strongly suggests the complainant is truthful.

Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: Expert testimony that only ~1 % of child-sexual-assault disclosures are false is admissible; it does not usurp the jury’s role and therefore does not violate State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92 (1984).
• Outcome: Court of appeals decision reversed; Molde’s convictions reinstated; his ineffective-assistance claim fails.
• Precedent Overruled: State v. Mader, 2023 WI App 35, and any similar court of appeals decisions.
• Authorship: Majority opinion by Justice Brian Hagedorn; concurrence by Justice Jill Karofsky emphasizing victim-credibility misconceptions.

Detailed Analysis

a. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. State v. Haseltine (1984) – Foundational rule: no witness may state another witness is telling the truth. The Court reaffirmed the distinction between “assistance” and “supplanting” of the jury.
2. State v. Robinson (1988) & State v. Jensen (1988) – Approved expert testimony on typical victim behaviours when it stops short of opining on truthfulness.
3. State v. Romero (1988) & State v. Kleser (2010) – Examples where the line was crossed; witnesses expressly or implicitly vouched for credibility.
4. State v. Maday (2017) – Permitted expert to note lack of coaching cues; clarified “extra step” test (vouching occurs when an expert applies observations directly to the complainant).
5. State v. Mader (2023, Ct. App.) – Held that 99 %-truthfulness statistics are vouching. Overruled here for misapplying Haseltine.
6. Strickland v. Washington (U.S. 1984) – Dual-prong standard for ineffective assistance; critical because Molde’s collateral attack depended on a sustainable Haseltine objection.

b. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The majority framed the issue through two conceptual filters:

• Nature of the Evidence: “Statistical evidence alone on the likelihood of false reports” is generalized, educational data about a class of cases, not an opinion about the specific witness.
• The “Extra Step” Test: A Haseltine violation occurs only when the expert applies the data to say (explicitly or implicitly) “this particular complainant is telling the truth.” Dr. Swenson did not take that step.

Rejecting the court of appeals’ “near-mathematical-certainty” rationale, the Court offered a symmetry argument:

Finally, the Court stressed that other evidentiary screens (Daubert reliability under § 907.02, and § 904.03 unfair-prejudice balancing) remain intact. The ruling is about vouching, not about reliability.

c. Impact of the Decision

• Immediate Effect: Prosecutors may now safely elicit empirical data on false-report prevalence without risking a mistrial or reversal under Haseltine.
• Defense Strategy Shift: Challenges must pivot from Haseltine objections to Daubert reliability, methodological critique, or alternative-expert rebuttal.
• Overruling of Mader: Trial courts and the court of appeals can no longer treat high-percentage truthfulness statistics as per se vouching.
• Broader Jurisprudence: Clarifies Wisconsin’s position within a split of national authorities (e.g., aligns with Indiana and Oregon decisions, departs from Eleventh Circuit and Delaware cases).
• Ineffective Assistance Litigation: Lawyers who forego Haseltine objections to purely statistical testimony will not, by that fact alone, be deemed constitutionally deficient.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Haseltine Rule

A prohibition against any witness (expert or lay) stating that another witness is telling the truth. It protects the jury’s exclusive role in assessing credibility.

Vouching

Testimony or argument that expressly or implicitly tells the jury a witness is credible. Impermissible because it can unduly influence the fact-finder.

Generalized vs. Particularized Testimony

• Generalized: Describes typical behaviour of a class (e.g., most CSA victims delay disclosure).
• Particularized: Applies those generalities to say “this complainant is truthful.” The latter violates Haseltine.

Daubert Reliability (Wis. Stat. § 907.02)

Wisconsin’s version of the federal standard requiring expert testimony to be based on reliable principles/methods, reliably applied.

Strickland Standard

A two-part test for ineffective assistance: (1) deficient performance, and (2) prejudice. Failure on either prong defeats the claim.

Conclusion

State v. Molde delivers a precise blueprint for courts and litigants confronting expert testimony on false-report rates in sexual-assault cases. By drawing a bright line—statistical prevalence evidence is permissible unless explicitly tied to the individual complainant—the Wisconsin Supreme Court both clarifies and narrows the reach of the Haseltine rule. The decision invigorates the evidentiary landscape, encouraging rigorous methodological challenges while eliminating a once-frequent appellate trap. In the broader legal context, Molde signals Wisconsin’s commitment to balancing helpful social-science insights with the sanctity of the jury’s fact-finding function.