On Point: 11. Defense Wins

William Kerr v. Thurmer, 7th Cir No. 09-1032, 3/28/11 – Part I

7th circuit decision, on habeas review of summary orders in 2001AP168 (§ 809.30 appeal) and 2003AP2332 (§ 974.06 appeal)

Due to the nature of the issues and length of discussion, this case will be canvassed in multiple posts. Part II (procedural default) is here; Part III (evidentiary hearing, guilty plea advice),

Gordon Sussman v. Jenkins, 7th Cir No. 09-3940, 4/1/11

7th circuit decision, granting habeas relief in State v. Sussman, 2007AP687-CR; in chambers opinion on stay

Habeas – Confrontation – Rape Shield and Prior False Allegation

The state court unreasonably restricted Sussman’s cross-examination of his chief accuser, and thus violated his right to confrontation, by precluding him from inquiring into the complainant’s prior false allegations of sexual misconduct.

State v. Bradley A. Faber, 2010AP2325-CR , District 2, 3/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Faber: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶1        The State of Wisconsin appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing the criminal charges against Bradley A. Faber.  Faber was issued a pair of citations for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) (First offense) by the City of Delavan in November 2005 and February 2006. 

State v. Quentin J. Louis, 2009AP2502-CR, District 3, 3/15/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Louis: Edward J. Hunt; amicus, Wis. Innocence Project: Keith A. Findley, Peter Shawn Moreno; case activity

Trial court grant of new trial in interest of justice upheld as proper exercise of discretion:  the issue in controversy wasn’t fully and fairly tried, given failure to adduce at trial medical testimony that the deceased baby’s injuries didn’t result from shaken baby syndrome.

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Batson Challenge

Scope of the remand inquiry for the government to proffer nonracial justification for striking a minority juror is limited to the original reason offered during voir dire, new post hoc justifications being inadmissible. Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005), discussed and followed:

… Accordingly, Miller-El II instructs that when ruling on a Batson challenge,

State v. Jeremy D. Pinnow, Milwaukee Co. Circ. Ct. No. 2010CM1978, 2/11/11

circuit court decision; case activity

Carrying concealed weapon charge dismissed, under as-applied (state) constitutional challenge, Art. I § 25. Pinnow had a cased, unloaded gun underneath the seat of his car, had himself been the recent victim of an armed robbery, believed with reason he was transporting the gun in a lawful manner, and wasn’t carrying the gun for an unlawful purpose.

district court decision, granting habeas relief on review of unpublished Wis COA opinion (2000AP-2460-CR); on remand from Toliver v. McCaughtry, 539 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.2008) 

for Toliver: Brian P. Mullins; Toliver BiC; Wis. Resp.; Reply

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance

Counsel performed deficiently in failing to call two potential witnesses who would have supported Toliver’s theory of defense that,

State v. Richard A. Wusterbarth, 2010AP1306-CR, District 3, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wusterburth: Eileen A Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Wusterburth BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The complaint established probable cause for obstructing, § 946.41(1), by alleging that Wusterburth made a false report to the police that a neighbor was manufacturing drugs,

State v. Gary R. Sampson, 2010AP1930-CR, District 3, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sampson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Sampson BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Sampson was guilty of theft for keeping a down payment to make improvements to a business without finishing the work. However, he is liable for restitution,

Heather B. v. Jennifer B., 2011 WI App 26; for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Where abandonment as a ground for termination, § 48.415(1)(a)2., is triggered by removal from the home under a CHIPS order, the 3-month period of abandonment must fall completely within the duration of the CHIPS placement order. Here, because the alleged abandonment period began two weeks before the end of the CHIPS placement order,