On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

The latest edition of the Volokh Conspiracy analyzes a recent 12-4 en banc decision by the 6th Circuit decision in which the majority answers the question above “no” based on current precedent. However, a “concurrence dubitante” argues that this conflicts with The Founders’ intent when they drafted the 6th Amendment. Another concurring opinion calls on SCOTUS to change its precedent. A dissent argues that based on the facts of this case,

State v. Dakota R. Black, 2017AP837, 3/22/18, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Black of the homicide of B.A.T., a five-year-old child in his care; the child was bruised and died of subdural hemorrhages. Black defended on the theory that the child’s injuries came in a fall, either on the stairs or on the playground.

State v. Gary Lee Wayerski, 2015AP1083-CR, petition for review of unpublished court of appeals opinion granted 3/13/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point):

Whether trial counsel was ineffective where he did not ask the testifying defendant about the purported confession he gave to a jailhouse snitch, and defendant would have denied the conversation occurred.

Whether the state violated Brady when it did not inform defense that the snitch had pending child-sex charges during the trial.

State v. Terrance Lavone Egerson, 2016AP1045-CR, District 1, 2/27/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Egerson moved to withdraw his pleas, alleging his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge the domestic abuse repeater enhancers appended to the charges Egerson faced. According to Egerson, those enhancers never applied, so he was overcharged and led to believe his sentencing exposure was greater than it was. The court of appeals holds trial counsel wasn’t deficient because the complaints supported charging them and, in any event, Egerson hasn’t shown prejudice.

State v. Lee Vang, 2017AP75-77-CR, District 1, 2/20/18,(not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Vang argued that his trial was ineffective in failing to object to (1) a police officer’s hearsay testimony about the victim’s statements to him; (2) his own testimony on direct about participating in an illegal street race for money; and (3) the State’s question about the local Fox News station mentioning him on a segment called “Wisconsin’s Most Wanted.”  The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s decision to deny Vang a Machner hearing on the first 2 claims for failure to show prejudice and on the third claim for failure to show deficient performance.

State v. Orlando Lloyd Cotton, 2016AP2211-CR, District 1, 2/13/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Cotton was convicted of being party to the crime of possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to deliver and keeping a drug house. He unsuccessfully argues the evidence wasn’t sufficient to convict him and that his trial lawyer was ineffective.

State v. Lonnie S. Sorenson, 2016AP1540-CR, 12/5/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Sorenson appeals jury-trial convictions for operating with a PAC and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was also found guilty of operating with a detectable amount of THC in his blood, but this was dismissed by operation of statute. See Wis. Stat. § 346.63(2)(am). He raises ineffective assistance, pretrial discovery, and confrontation issues, but the court rejects them all.

State v. Ginger Breitzman, 2017 WI 100, 12/1/17, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Breitzman was convicted at trial of several counts of child abuse (for physical assaults) and neglect of her son, J.K. She was also convicted of a charge of disorderly conduct for an incident inside their home in which she called him a “fuck face,” a “retard,” and a “piece of shit.” The lead issue is whether her trial lawyer was ineffective for not trying to get the DC dismissed because her words were protected by the First Amendment. The court refuses to decide.

State v. D.C., 2016AP2229-2230, District 1, 11/30/17 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

During the grounds phase of her TPR proceeding, D.C.’s lawyer asked the trial court to: (1) instruct the jury that she was prohibited from having visitation with her children for a period of time, and (2) give curative instructions that it was impossible for her to perform a condition for return of her kids and to assume parental responsibility due to her incarceration.  The court planned to rule on these requests just before trial, but, oops, that did not happen.

At least three justices of the Supreme Court of the United states think so.