On Point blog, page 50 of 55
State v. Jeffrey A.W., 2010 WI App 29
court of appeals decision; for Jeffrey A.W.: Hans P. Koesser
Resp Br; Reply
Counsel – Adequacy of Investigation
Attempt to demonstrate absence of herpes in defendant—an issue central to this sexual assault prosecution—was, although failure, not product of deficient performance, ¶12:
There is no question that trial counsel’s investigation yielded the wrong information. But that does not necessarily equate to deficient performance.
State v. Jennifer Z., 2009AP846, Dist III, 1/12/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
Delinquency – Venue
Delinquency venue is where the juvenile resides, § 938.185(1)(a), which is where the legal custodian establishes the child’s domicile; legal custodian of Jennifer Z. was Taylor Co. Human Services, therefore she resided in Taylor Co.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Eliciting Incriminating Testimony
Counsel’s eliciting incriminating testimony, without tactical reason, leading to added count was ineffective.
Counsel: Failed but Adequate Investigation; Interest-of-Justice Review: Critical Evidence (Absence of Herpes) Not Heard by Jury
State v. Jeffrey A.W., 2010 WI App 29; for Jeffrey A.W.: Hans P. Koesser
Adequacy of Counsel Investigation
Counsel’s attempt to demonstrate the absence of herpes in the defendant—an issue central to this sexual assault prosecution—was, although a failure, not the product of deficient performance.
¶12 There is no question that trial counsel’s investigation yielded the wrong information. But that does not necessarily equate to deficient performance.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Lack of Familiarity with Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Johnbull K. Osagiede v. USA, 543 F.3d 399 (7th Cir 2009)
Issue/Holding: Counsel’s ignorance of rights available, under VCCR Art. 36, to her Nigerian national client was deficient:
Osagiede’s claim is a common one in Sixth Amendment cases. In essence, Osagiede argues that his lawyer should have been aware of his legal rights under Article 36 and should have acted to protect them: “All lawyers that represent criminal defendants are expected to know the laws applicable to their client’s defense.” Julian v.
Particular Issues – Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Lack of Familiarity with Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Johnbull K. Osagiede v. USA, 7th Cir No. 07-1131, 9/9/08
Issue/Holding: Counsel’s ignorance of VCCR Art. 36 rights available to foreign national client was deficient:
Osagiede’s claim is a common one in Sixth Amendment cases. In essence, Osagiede argues that his lawyer should have been aware of his legal rights under Article 36 and should have acted to protect them: “All lawyers that represent criminal defendants are expected to know the laws applicable to their client’s defense.” Julian v.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Closing Argument: Inconsistent Theories
State v. Paul Dwayne Westmoreland, 2008 WI App 15, PFR filed 1/17/08
For Westmoreland: Joseph E. Redding
Issue: Whether counsel’s strategic decision to argue inconsistent theories during closing argument (the defendant wasn’t involved in the shooting, but if the jury found he was then they should find guilt only on a lesser offense) was deficient.
Holding:
¶20 We start with the proposition that strategic decisions by a lawyer are virtually invulnerable to second-guessing.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Failure to Adduce Expert Testimony on False Confessions
State v. Jason K. Van Buren, 2008 WI App 26; for Van Buren: Waring R. Fincke
Issue: Whether trial counsel’s failure to adduce expert testimony on false confessions was deficient.
Holding:
¶18 Here, we do not address the prejudice prong of Strickland because we conclude that Van Buren’s counsel was not deficient. A finding of deficient performance “requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland,
Postconviction Motions – Evidentiary Hearing – Claim of Denial of Effective Counsel Due to Client’s Severe Hearing Impairment
State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2007 WI App 248
For Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶13 Although an indigent defendant does not have the right to pick his or her trial lawyer, Mulkovich v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 464, 474, 243 N.W.2d 198, 203–204 (1976) (“This court has frequently said that, except in cases of indigency, a defendant may have whatever counsel he chooses to retain and may refuse to accept the services of counsel he does not want.”),
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Law Must Be Clear – Juror Dissent After Guilty Verdict Accepted and Phase II (NGI) Deliberations Begun
State v. Jennifer Wery, 2007 WI App 169
For Wery: Elizabeth Ewald-Herrick
Issue/Holding:
¶17 Wery’s counsel’s failure to object did not constitute deficient performance. Deficient performance is limited to situations where the law or duty is clear such that reasonable counsel should know enough to raise the issue. State v. McMahon, 186 Wis. 2d 68, 85, 519 N.W.2d 621 (Ct. App. 1994).