On Point blog, page 30 of 31
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Wisconsin supreme court decision, reversing unpublished summary order; for Carter: John T. Wasielewski; BiC (State); Resp.; Reply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,
TPR – Effective Assistance of Counsel
State v. Chester C., 2009AP2824, District I, 5/4/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Chester C.: Dianne M. Erickson
TPR – Effective Assistance of Counsel
Failure to demonstrate prejudice within the meaning of Strickland dooms this ineffective-assistance claim that trial counsel failed to object to various hearsay statements:
¶7 Other than complaining that his trial lawyer did not object to the hearsay we have recounted,
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.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Examination of Witness – Open-Ended Question
State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶39 Questions that call for a narrative are generally improper because they do not alert court and counsel to the subject about which the witness is about to testify. There are exceptions, however, and whether to permit a question calling for a narrative response is within the trial court’s discretion under Wis.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Adequate Investigation — Alibi Defense
State v. Eric D. Cooks, 2006 WI App 262
For Cooks: Joseph E. Redding
Issue/Holding:
¶50 Cooks, as the trial court found, provided Barth with the names of alibi witnesses and Barth had Cooks testify to his alibi. However, Barth failed to investigate the potential alibi witnesses and argue Cooks’ alibi to the jury. Barth failed to do so despite the fact that a corroborated alibi clearly would have reinforced Barth’s misidentification theory of defense.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Adequate Investigation – Failure to Investigate Facts (Impeachment of Key Witnesses
State v. Jeannie M.P., 2005 WI App 183
For Jeannie M.P.: Michael Yovovich, Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where counsel knew, or should have known, of evidence establishing possible motives for each of the two crucial State’s witnesses; and where adducing evidence of those motives would have been consistent with the chosen theory of defense, counsel’s failure to bring out that evidence at trial was deficient,
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.