On Point blog, page 3 of 8
Defense win: Failure to call represented witness was ineffective
State v. Micah Nathaniel Reno, 2016AP1371-CR, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Reno’s trial lawyer wanted to call A.A. as a witness at trial. But A.A. had a pending case and A.A.’s lawyer told Reno’s lawyer not to talk to her. Thinking he was barred by the ethics rules from talking to a represented person, Reno’s lawyer didn’t attempt to talk to A.A. or call her as a witness. Trial counsel was ineffective because he was not attempting to talk to A.A. about the subject matter of her case, but only about the subject matter of Reno’s case, and therefore counsel wasn’t barred under the rules of ethics from trying to talk to or call A.A. as a witness.
Defense win! “Woefully” inadequate advice about deportation is ineffective assistance
State v. Irvin Perez-Basurto, 2016AP2136, 7/18/2017, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Irvin Perez-Basurto was born in Mexico and brought to the United States by his mother when he was 14. He had been approved by the Homeland Security for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status (he is, in common parlance, a “dreamer”) and was thus permitted to remain in this country.
SCOTUS: Defendants with no viable defense may be able to establish prejudice under Padilla
Jae Lee v. United States, USSC No. 16-327, 2017 WL 2694701 (June 23, 2017), reversing Lee v. United States, 825 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Lee’s lawyer told him he would not be deported if he pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His lawyer was wrong, so he performed deficiently under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). But can Lee establish his lawyer’s indisputably wrong advice prejudiced him, i.e., that he would have gone to trial had he known he would be deported even though he had no real prospect of acquittal? Yes, says a majority of the Supreme Court, rejecting the approach urged by the Government and adopted by some federal circuits.
Counsel deficient in allowing jury to see exhibit, but defense prejudiced on just 1 of 5 counts
State v. Lamont Donnell Sholar, 2016AP987, 6/20/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 10/17/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 53; case activity (including briefs)
Sholar was charged with 5 counts of sex trafficking and 1 count of sexual assault. At trial, defense counsel allowed “Exhibit 79”–a 181-page report containing the contents of Sholar’s cell phone, including 1,4000 text messages and photos of girls and women in suggestive poses, to go to the jury. The State concedes that defense counsel performed deficiently, but argued that Sholar was prejudiced only with respect to the sexual assault charge, not the sex trafficking charges. The court of appeals agreed.
Defense win! Defense counsel’s failure to object warranted new trial
State v. David Earl Harris, Jr., 2016AP548-CR, 5/31/17, District 1 (unpublished); case activity (including briefs)
The state charged Harris with heinous conduct giving rise to false imprisonment, sexual assault, and strangulation charges. At trial, the DA introduced a copy of a TRO that pre-dated the criminal complaint but mirrored the facts that it alleged. Defense counsel didn’t mind letting the jury see the TRO because she thought it showed that the TRO allegations were false. But she didn’t notice the part of the TRO where the court commissioner found reasonable grounds to believe that Harris had committed all heinous conduct described in the TRO. Uh oh. Guess what happened?
Check out this terrific resource on ineffective assistance of counsel claims!
Former ASPD John Breffeilh just brought a real gem to On Point’s attention. It’s an indexed compilation of hundreds (maybe thousands) of successful ineffective assistance of counsel cases from around the nation. The database runs from 1984 when SCOTUS decided Strickland through the present. It includes Wisconsin cases and covers everything from criminal cases, to sexual predator cases, to involuntary mental commitments.
Skimming this resource can help you (a) avoid missteps and/or (b) find the perfect case to support your client’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Counsel ineffective; failed to challenge credibility in swearing contest
State v. Rafael D. Honig, 2016 WI App 10; case activity (including briefs)
Honig, convicted at trial of two first-degree child sexual assaults, asserts that his trial counsel mishandled three issues bearing on the credibility of his accusers; the court of appeals agrees.
Freed from the shackles of AEDPA deference, Seventh Circuit finds trial counsel in homicide case ineffective for failing to consider consultation with forensic pathology expert
Oscar C. Thomas v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2539, 6/16/15, petition for rehearing en banc denied, 8/7/15
Thomas is entitled to a new trial for the intentional homicide of Joyce Oliver-Thomas, his ex-wife, because his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to ask a pathology expert to review the conclusions of the state’s forensic pathologist—conclusions on which the prosecutor relied heavily in arguing that Thomas caused Oliver-Thomas’s death intentionally rather than accidentally, as Thomas claimed.
Trial counsel found ineffective; promised defendant would testify, told jury about defendant’s sordid past, failed to elicit impeachment evidence
State v. James Richard Coleman, 2015 WI App 38; case activity (including briefs)
Coleman’s trial lawyer was ineffective for telling the jury Coleman would testify when Coleman had never said he intended to testify; for telling the jury that Coleman had a prior criminal conviction; and for failing to impeach the victim’s allegations by eliciting inconsistent statements she made to other witnesses.
Medical examiner’s reliance on toxicology report of out-of-state lab violated defendant’s right to confrontation
State v. Jason S. VanDyke, 2015 WI App 30; case activity (including briefs)
In this prosecution for reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, VanDyke’s right to confrontation was violated where the medical examiner relied on the toxicology report of an out-of-state drug testing lab to conclude the victim had died of a heroin overdose, the toxicology report was admitted into evidence as part of the autopsy report, but no witness from the lab was called to testify about the toxicology testing.