On Point: 8. Counsel, 6th Am.

State v. Robert L. Snider, 2003 WI App 172, PFR filed 8/22/03
For Snider: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue/Holding: The detective’s testimony as to what he believed at the time he was conducting the investigation did not amount to a comment on the credibility of a witness, hence was not deficient performance, ¶27. Moreover, “(c)ounsel’s attempt to discredit the investigating detective by showing that he came to a premature conclusion regarding what had occurred,

State v. Robert Jamont Wright, 2003 WI App 252
For Wright: Ann Auberry

Issue/Holding:

¶35. Wright’s appellate argument rests largely on Van Rybroek’s testimony at the Machner hearing, which documents the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. However, as the trial court aptly observed, trial counsel’s decision to forego an expert was made prior to Lomack surfacing as a potential witness and prior to the trial court’s ruling that Van Rybroek’s testimony was admissible under those changed circumstances.

State v. Evan Zimmerman, 2003 WI App 196, (AG) PFR filed 9/10/03
For Zimmerman: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s admittedly non-tactical failure to obtain DNA results on hair found on the victim’s pants and on scrapings from her fingernails was deficient, similar to State v. Glass, 170 Wis. 2d 146, 488 N.W.2d 432 (Ct. App. 1992):

¶40. Here,

State v. Evan Zimmerman, 2003 WI App 196, (AG) PFR filed 9/10/03
For Zimmerman: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to offer independent medical evidence that would have challenged the state’s expert as to the weapon used to kill the victim and that would have indicated that the murder was consistent with a sex crime, was deficient performance:

¶42. Given the particular facts of this case,

State v. Evan Zimmerman, 2003 WI App 196, (AG) PFR filed 9/10/03
For Zimmerman: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to challenge a witness’s hypnotically refreshed testimony, as violating the guidelines of State v. Armstrong, 110 Wis. 2d 555, 329 N.W.2d 386 (1983), was deficient:

¶45. To begin, we are not persuaded by counsel’s explanation of his trial strategy.

State v. Harold C. Pote, III, 2003 WI App 30
For Pote: John A. Pray, Remington Law Center

Issue: Whether counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate a potential defense (inability to work for medical reasons) to one of two counts of nonsupport, where counsel complied with the defendant’s instruction to obtain a plea bargain involving no incarceration and the count with the potential defense was dismissed under the plea bargain.

State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02
For Polak: Philip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding:

¶15. When an adequate colloquy is not conducted, and the defendant makes a motion for a new trial or other postconviction relief from the trial court’s judgment, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the waiver of the right to counsel was knowing, intelligent and voluntary….¶16.

State v. Peter G. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281, PFR filed 11/14/02
For Tkacz: Mark S. Rosen

Issue: Whether the prosecutor’s prior representation of the defendant in a civil forfeiture worked a disqualifying conflict of interest.

Holding: The standard for analyzing the existence of a conflict of interest (raised before trial) in serial representation is the “substantial relationship” test, ¶15 ( State v.

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, PFR filed 4/23/02
For Chu: Andrew Shaw

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to retain an arson expert wasn’t deficient performance, where there was no indication the fire was anything other than arson, and defendant didn’t have sufficient funds to hire an expert. ¶¶50-52

State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02
For Polak: Philip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding: A defendant need not be produced for a postconviction hearing where there are no substantial issues of fact to resolve. ¶22.