On Point: a. Prejudice found

State v. James R. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, reversing unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Thiel: Bruce J. Rosen

Issue/Holding:

¶51. Third, counsel’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 972.11(3) reflects a failure either to research or correctly interpret relevant portions of the law. The circuit court found that counsel interpreted this statute as allowing the defense to prevent the State from presenting evidence of the complaining witness’s prior personal or medical history if the defense did not file a motion under § 972.11(3).

State v. Evan Zimmerman, 2003 WI App 196, (AG) PFR filed 9/10/03
For Zimmerman: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s admittedly non-tactical failure to obtain DNA results on hair found on the victim’s pants and on scrapings from her fingernails was deficient, similar to State v. Glass, 170 Wis. 2d 146, 488 N.W.2d 432 (Ct. App. 1992):

¶40. Here,

State v. Evan Zimmerman, 2003 WI App 196, (AG) PFR filed 9/10/03
For Zimmerman: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to offer independent medical evidence that would have challenged the state’s expert as to the weapon used to kill the victim and that would have indicated that the murder was consistent with a sex crime, was deficient performance:

¶42. Given the particular facts of this case,

State v. Evan Zimmerman, 2003 WI App 196, (AG) PFR filed 9/10/03
For Zimmerman: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to challenge a witness’s hypnotically refreshed testimony, as violating the guidelines of State v. Armstrong, 110 Wis. 2d 555, 329 N.W.2d 386 (1983), was deficient:

¶45. To begin, we are not persuaded by counsel’s explanation of his trial strategy.

State ex rel. Ruven Seibert v. Macht, 2001 WI 67, 244 Wis. 2d 378, 627 N.W.2d 881, reconsideration denied2002 WI 12, reversing unpublished court of appeals order
For Seibert: Gregory P. Seibold; amicus brief: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School
Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case presents two issues. The first issue is whether an indigent sexually violent person, as defined by Wis.

Vonaire T. Washington v. Smith, 219 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2000)
For Washington: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Trial consel’s performance was deficient in three respects:

• Last-minute issuance of subpoena for hard-to-find witness, on theory that trials are often adjourned at last minute anyway. (“(P)lacing witness convenience above the vital interests of his client does not make Mr. Engle’s decsion reasonable — or even really strategic.”)
• Failure to investigate potential defense witnesses.