On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); Resp Br. (Berard); Reply (State)

Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Prior Representation in Unrelated Case
“Berard’s postconviction showing that Peter B. was Attorney Smith’s former client in an unrelated case and that he wanted to pin his charged crimes on Peter B. does not equate to a showing of an actual conflict of interest. 

court of appeals decision, affirmed, 2011 WI 27; for Beauchamp: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; case activity

Dying Declaration, § 908.045(3)

¶8        …  dying declaration, codified in Wisconsin Stat. Rule 908.045(3): “A statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the declarant’s impending death.” Under established law,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)

Sanctions – Defendant’s Failure to Appear – Default Judgment
Court not empowered to enter default judgment in civil claim where defendant appears by counsel but not in person; odd discussion of “puerile” “tactic of some traffic defense lawyers to make the government prove identity without the defendant being in the courtroom.”

court of appeals decision; for Jeffrey A.W.: Hans P. Koesser
Resp Br; Reply

Counsel – Adequacy of Investigation
Attempt to demonstrate absence of herpes in defendant—an issue central to this sexual assault prosecution—was, although  failure, not product of deficient performance, ¶12:

There is no question that trial counsel’s investigation yielded the wrong information. But that does not necessarily equate to deficient performance.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

Delinquency – Venue
Delinquency venue is where the juvenile resides, § 938.185(1)(a), which is where the legal custodian establishes the child’s domicile; legal custodian of Jennifer Z. was Taylor Co. Human Services, therefore she resided in Taylor Co.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Eliciting Incriminating Testimony
Counsel’s eliciting incriminating testimony, without tactical reason, leading to added count was ineffective.

State v. Jeffrey A.W., 2010 WI App 29; for Jeffrey A.W.: Hans P. Koesser

Adequacy of Counsel Investigation

Counsel’s attempt to demonstrate the absence of herpes in the defendant—an issue central to this sexual assault prosecution—was, although a failure, not the product of deficient performance.

¶12  There is no question that trial counsel’s investigation yielded the wrong information. But that does not necessarily equate to deficient performance.

• Failure to Object/Seek Admissibility;
• Guilty Pleas/Plea Bargains;
• Jury Instructions;
• Jury Selection;
• Sentencing;
• Prejudice;
• Litigating IAC Claims;
• IAC and Interest of Justice;
• Sanctions;
• Malpractice Claim

court of appeals decision

Inadequate Appendix to Appellate Brief
¶5 n. 1:

 We note that neither Russell’s nor Buske’s appellate counsel properly cite to the record. Record cites are often missing. An appellate court is improperly burdened where briefs fail to consistently and accurately cite to the record. Meyer v. Fronimades, 2 Wis. 2d 89, 93-94, 86 N.W.2d 25 (1957). Even more troubling is that both appellate counsel failed to include in the appendix all “the findings or opinion[s] of the circuit court … including oral or written rulings or decisions showing the circuit court’s reasoning regarding those issues,” as required by Wis.

court of appeals decision

GAL Interview of Ward outside Presence of Adversary Counsel

¶11      The policies underlying the no-contact rule are of sufficient importance in guardianship cases that the right to counsel guaranteed by Wis. Stat. § 54.42(1)(b) includes the ward’s right to have counsel present during an interview with the guardian ad litem for the purpose of making a report to the court. A ward placed under a guardianship of the person has been found incompetent in that “the individual is unable effectively to receive and evaluate information or to make or communicate decisions to such an extent that the individual is unable to meet the essential requirements for his or her physical health and safety.” Wis. 

Waiver of Escalona argument; claim of self-defense where crime includes “utter disregard of life” element

Click here for court of appeals decision, PFR filed 8/3/09

(opinion originally issued 4/23, withdrawn 5/12, reissued 5/21, withdrawn 6/12, reissued 7/2. Groundhog Day? Not quite: the withdrawn opinions found that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a lesser included instruction to reckless injury, but the new opinion rejects that conclusion)

Pro se

Issue/Holding: State failure to argue,