On Point blog, page 21 of 22
Machner Hearing; Mistrial
State v. Sidney Clark, 2010AP790, District 1, 2/23/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clark: John A. Pray; case activity
Clark can’t show prejudice from the deficient performance he alleges, therefore he isn’t entitled to a Machner hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶21 A postconviction hearing is necessary to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v.
Counsel: Request for Substitute – Effective Assistance (Disclosure of Communications, et al.); Double Jeopardy: Bail Jumping
State v. Demetrius M. Boyd, 2011 WI App 25; for Boyd: Rebecca Robin Lawnicki; case activity; Boyd BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Request for New Counsel
An indigent defendant doesn’t have the right to counsel of choice, but does have the right to counsel with whom he or she can communicate effectively. When an indigent defendant requests change of counsel,
Habeas Review – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Deference Must Be Given State Court Determination
Harrington v. Richter, USSC No. 09-587, 1/19/11, reversing grant of habeas relief, in 578 F. 3d 944
The 9th Circuit failed to give sufficient deference to the state court’s determination that Richter received adequate representation, requiring reversal of it grant of AEDPA-2254 habeas relief. The principal thrust of the opinion relates to the standard of review, both as to AEDPA habeas generally and ineffective-assistance claims more particularly.
Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object; Comment on Another Witness’s Truthfulness – Failure to Object;Ineffective Assistance – Prejudice
State v. Charles R. Black, 2009AP2036-CR, District 4, 1/13/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Black: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Black BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object
An expert may testify that a complainant’s behavior is consistent with a sexual assault victim’s,
Ineffective Assistance: Inconsistent Defenses – “McMorris” Evidence – Prejudice; Appellate Procedure: Candor – Briefs, Record References
State v. Dekoria Marks, 2010 WI App 172 (recommended for publication); for Marks: Joel A. Mogren; Marks BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Ineffective Assistance – Inconsistent Defenses
Counsel’s choice to pursue potentially inconsistent defenses (self-defense; no involvement) was, in light of the “not uncommon practice of lawyers to argue inconsistent theories,” within the wide range of professionally competence assistance.
¶15 First,
Habeas – Effective Assistance – Stun Belt
John M. Stephenson v. Levenhagen, 7th Cir No. 09-2924, 08/26/2010
7th Cir decision; petition for rehearing denied 1/14/11, 3 dissents from denial of en banc review
Habeas – Effective Assistance – Stun Belt
Counsel’s failure to object to placement of stun belt on Stephenson during trial was held by the state court to be deficient: accepting that conclusion (albeit with apparent reluctance), the federal court holds on habeas review that the deficiency wasn’t prejudicial.
Terry Frisk – House; Ineffective Assistance – Prejudice
State v. Jacquese Franklin Harrell, 2010 WI App 132; for Harrell: Michael S. Holzman; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Terry Frisk – House
The police had both reasonable suspicion that Harrell had committed a violent crime, and consent to be in his house to question him. Therefore, police inspection of a chair for possible weapons before allowing Harrell to sit in it,
Habeas – exhaustion, effective assistance
Freddie L. Byers, Jr., v. Basinger, 7th Cir No. 09-1833, 7/9/10
Habeas – Exhaustion
To exhaust a federal claim, a 2254 petitioner must have “fairly presented” it to the state court.
… We use four factors to evaluate whether a petitioner has “fairly presented” his claim: “1) whether the petitioner relied on federal cases that engage in a constitutional analysis; 2) whether the petitioner relied on state cases which apply a constitutional analysis to similar facts;
Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Suppression Motion
John Ebert v. Gaetz, 7th Circuit No. 09-1627, 6/23/10
7th circuit court of appeals decision
When the ineffective assistance claim is based on counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress, as it is here, the defendant must also prove “that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice.” Kimmelman v.
Effective Assistance – Rape Shield
State v. Michael James Carter, 2010 WI 40
Wisconsin supreme court decision, reversing unpublished summary order; for Carter: John T. Wasielewski; BiC (State); Resp.; Reply
Counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to search for admissibility of sexual conduct evidence as an exception to the rape shield law. Therefore, Carter can’t show deficient performance. Separately, this evidence wouldn’t have fallen within an exception anyway,