On Point blog, page 49 of 55
State v. Earnest Jean Jackson, 2009AP1449-CR, District I, 4/27/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Mark S. Rosen; BiC: Resp.; Reply
Double Jeopardy – Retrial Following Mistrial
Mistrial on defendant’s motion, occasioned by prosecutorial failure to disclose that witness was cooperating with police in separate investigation of Jackson, didn’t bar retrial: there was no showing that the prosecutor was aware of the undisclosed information, or that failure to disclose was intended to provoke mistrial,
Peter H. v. Keri H., 2009AP2487, District III, 4/23/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keri H.: Leonard D. Kachinski
IAC Claim – TPR
“The decision not to emphasize events preceding the current termination petitions was a reasonable strategic choice and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶11. Separately: counsel did not perform deficiently in his efforts to obtain Keri H.’s client file from predecessor counsel, and then securing an adjournment to prepare for trial,
State v. Victor T. Jackson, 2009AP851-CR, District I, 4/6/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Hearsay, Child Sexual Assault, Residual Exception
Statements by youthful sex assault complainants admissible under residual hearsay exception, court rejecting idea that it’s thereby allowing exception to swallow general rule against hearsay admissibility; confrontation objection forfeited).
Counsel – Strategic Basis for Failing to Adduce Alibi Witness
Counsel’s failure to have potential alibi witnesses testify was reasonable strategy,
State v. Derriest Lamar Boose, 2009AP1450, District I, 4/6/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
Postconviction Motion, IAC Claim
Denial of Machner hearing upheld: defendant’s affidavit in support of motion “conclusory,” and claims otherwise contradicted by contemporaneous record.
Failure to Advise Guilty Plea Defendant of Deportation Consequence
Padilla v. Kentucky, USSC No. 08-651, 3/31/10
In sum, we have long recognized that the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Hill , 474 U. S., at 57; see also Richardson , 397 U. S., at 770–771. The severity of deportation—“the equivalent of banishment or exile,” Delgadillo v.
State v. Lazorus Lidell, 2009AP1191-CR, District I, 3/30/2010
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Lidell: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Ineffective Assistance
Failure to impeach complainant with various prior inconsistent statements either adequate strategy or non-prejudicial; failure to call witnesses proper strategy, where attorney interviewed them and determined “that their demeanor would not help the defense.”
State v. Alexis O. West, 2009AP1619-CR, District I, 3/30/2010
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Ineffective Assistance
Machner hearing not required because record “conclusively demonstrates” no deficient performance; nor can prejudice be shown from asserted deficiency.
Terry C. Brown v. Finnan, 7th Cir No. 08-3151, 3/17/10
7th circuit court of appeals decision
Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Extraneous Juror Influence
1. Where both defendant and homicide victim were African-American, in-court proclamation from latter’s mother that “the situation is racist” is deemed to be “ambiguous and apparently innocuous.” It follows that counsel’s failure to pursue the matter was reasonable.
Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (unauthorized extraneous contact with juror creates presumption of prejudice and thus requires hearing),
State v. John A. Wood, 2010 WI 17
Wisconsin supreme court decision; below: certification; for Wood: Kristin E. Lehker; for amicus, Disability Rights Watch: Kristin Kerschensteiner; Supp. App. Br.; Supp. Resp.; Supp. Reply
¶13 A party may challenge a law or government action as being unconstitutional on its face. Under such a challenge, the challenger must show that the law cannot be enforced “under any circumstances.”
State v. Stephen A. Broad, 2009AP1983-CR, District II, 3/17/2010
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication) BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Traffic Arrest
Probable cause to believe Broad drove on public roadway, hence to arrest for OWI, where car was found off the road, Broad was in driver’s seat and admitted to being driver, car “was warm and running.”
Right to Testify
Violation of rule requiring contemporaneous colloquy as to waiver of right to testify at trial doesn’t lead to automatic reversal of conviction;