On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.

Controlled Substance – Prescribed by Out-of-State Doctor
Possession of marijuana, prescribed by California doctor under laws of that state, may be prosecuted in Wisconsin: though an exception exists for possession obtained by prescription from a “practitioner,” § 961.41(3g), the practitioner must be licensed in Wisconsin, § 961.01(19)(a). ¶10.

Well, the court’s conclusion might be grammatically sound,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keri H.: Leonard D. Kachinski

IAC Claim – TPR
“The decision not to emphasize events preceding the current termination petitions was a reasonable strategic choice and does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶11. Separately: counsel did not perform deficiently in his efforts to obtain Keri H.’s client file from predecessor counsel, and then securing an adjournment to prepare for trial,

Wisconsin supreme court decision

Public reprimand for: “over-litigating” small claims case; taking position adverse to clients’ interest; pursuing frivolous argument; “making a baseless statement” about opposing counsel/party.

Seven-plus years ago, counsel assumed representation of two debtors trying to get out of a $491.36 bill for medical services. The dust from the ensuing litigation volcano settles today around an obligation that totals north of $20,000 — almost (but not all) from counsel’s pocket.

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Hearsay, Child Sexual Assault, Residual Exception
Statements by youthful sex assault complainants admissible under residual hearsay exception, court rejecting idea that it’s thereby allowing exception to swallow general rule against hearsay admissibility; confrontation objection forfeited).

Counsel – Strategic Basis for Failing to Adduce Alibi Witness
Counsel’s failure to have potential alibi witnesses testify was reasonable strategy,

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.

Postconviction Motion, IAC Claim
Denial of Machner hearing upheld: defendant’s affidavit in support of motion “conclusory,” and claims otherwise contradicted by contemporaneous record.

Padilla v. Kentucky, USSC No. 08-651, 3/31/10

In sum, we have long recognized that the negotiation of a plea bargain is a critical phase of litigation for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Hill , 474 U. S., at 57; see also Richardson , 397 U. S., at 770–771. The severity of deportation—“the equivalent of banishment or exile,” Delgadillo v.

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Lidell: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Ineffective Assistance
Failure to impeach complainant with various prior inconsistent statements either adequate strategy or non-prejudicial; failure to call witnesses proper strategy, where attorney interviewed them and determined “that their demeanor would not help the defense.”

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Ineffective Assistance
Machner hearing not required because record “conclusively demonstrates” no deficient performance; nor can prejudice be shown from asserted deficiency.

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Extraneous Juror Influence
1. Where both defendant and homicide victim were African-American, in-court proclamation from latter’s mother that “the situation is racist” is deemed to be “ambiguous and apparently innocuous.” It follows that counsel’s failure to pursue the matter was reasonable.

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (unauthorized extraneous contact with juror creates presumption of prejudice and thus requires hearing),

7th Circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Procedural Bar
Smith defaulted one claim by failing to raise it “in a full round of appellate review” in state court (i.e., he failed to include the issue in his request for Illinois supreme court review). He is unable to overcome the resultant bar on habeas review, on a cause-and-prejudice analysis. Among other things, the claim (trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a witness ID instruction) would likely fail on the merits because counsel didn’t act in an objectively unreasonable manner by failing to object to a pattern instruction.