On Point blog, page 52 of 55
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance — Failure to Research Law – “Unsettled” or Murky Law
State v. John R. Maloney, 2005 WI 74, affirming 2004 WI App 141, but nonetheless retaining jurisdiction pending resolution of other issues
For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman
Issue/Holding: Failure to move to suppress evidence based on asserted violation of SCR 20:4.2 does not support deficient performance, given that applicability of this Rule was not settled:
¶23 The split of authorities described above is important in considering whether Maloney’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the admissibility of the videotape evidence based on an alleged violation of SCR 20:4.2.
Evidentiary Hearing – Pleading Requirements
State v. John Allen, 2004 WI 106, affirming unpublished decision
For Allen: Michael J. Backes
Issue/Holding:
¶14 A hearing on a postconviction motion is required only when the movant states sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief. …¶15 It has been said repeatedly that a postconviction motion for relief requires more than conclusory allegations. Despite the repetitive theme that such motions require the allegation of sufficient material facts that,
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Failure to Investigate Confession to Crime by Defendant’s Brother
State v. Joseph J. Guerard, 2004 WI 85, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Guerard: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue/Holding: Failure to interview or subpoena an investigator to whom the defendant’s brother had confessed was deficient performance; the basis for this failure, that counsel “thought the confessions were hearsay and that York’s reports were the work product of the State Public Defender’s office,
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Examination of Witness – Defendant’s Perjurious Testimony
State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2004 WI 70, affirming 2003 WI App 168; habeas relief denied, McDowell v. Kingston, 497 F.3d 757 (7th Cir 2007)
For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella
Amici: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray
Issue/Holding: (Given the significance of the holding, at-length quoting is required in regard to counsel’s performance obligations relative to a client whose testimony may be perjurious:)
¶2.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Presentation/Examination of Witnesses – Impeachment
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding: “Second, Arredondo claims that his trial attorney failed to impeach Garza’s testimony with false statements Garza made to the police. This claim fails on both the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Arredondo cannot show prejudice because Garza admitted on direct-examination that he lied to the police….,” ¶33.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Presentation/Examination of Witnesses – Opening Door to “Haseltine” Evidence, on Tactical Grounds
State v. John R. Maloney, 2004 WI App 141, affirmed, 2005 WI 74
For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman
Issue/Holding:
¶18. Maloney complains trial counsel invited a Haseltine violation against him by asking on cross-examination whether Skorlinski believed anything Maloney had told him in the investigation. See State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92,
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Presentation/Examination of Witnesses – Defendant’s Testimony from Prior Trial in Different Case
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:
¶49. Arredondo further claims that his trial lawyer should have moved to admit pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 908.045(1) (declarant unavailable) the transcript of Arredondo’s testimony at the 1995 sexual-assault trial. Arredondo contends that the trial court would have been “required” to admit his prior testimony because the other-acts evidence placed him in the “constitutionally untenable”
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Presentation/Examination of Witnesses – Defendant’s Testimony: Waiver of and Revocation of Waiver
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:
¶27. Arredondo argues that his trial lawyer was ineffective for advising him not to testify. We disagree. At the Machner hearing, Arredondo’s attorney testified that he advised Arredondo not to testify for two main, albeit related, reasons. First, the lawyer testified that he believed Arredondo would make a poor witness because Arredondo told him inconsistent details about the night Klamann was killed,
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Failure to File Suppression Motion
State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63
For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta
Issue/Holding: Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion based on his assessment that the arrest was supported by probable cause; “the highly incriminating evidence against Cash known” to the authorities before the arrest in fact supported probable cause, ¶¶24-25.
What if there had been an arguable basis for the suppression and no non-tactical basis for failing to file it?
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Failure to Research Applicable Law and Object to Inadmissible Evidence (PSR)
State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to research admissibility of testimony which controlling caselaw plainly regards as confidential was deficient:
¶23. While Swierenga’s testimony was admissible, Geske’s was not. Crowell, which Greve reaffirmed, plainly instructs that information obtained during a court-ordered presentence investigation must remain confidential unless the court has specifically authorized its use under the limited confidentiality exception provided in Wis.