On Point blog, page 2 of 3
Court of appeals rejects bid for new trial based on new evidence, IAC
State v. Matthew Ray Taylor, 2016AP682-CR, District 1, 6/27/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Taylor argues he should get a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals rejects his claims.
Counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to request certain jury instructions or objecting to prosecutor’s closing
State v. Ryan P. O’Boyle, 2014AP80-CR, District 1, 11/4/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
O’Boyle’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are rejected because trial counsel’s performance wasn’t deficient.
State’s handling of photo array evidence did not violate due process or discovery statute
State v. Raynard Rashawn Jackson, 2012AP1854, 2012AP1861, and 2012AP1862, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP1854; 2012AP1861; 2012AP1862
Jackson was alleged to have been involved in a shooting, and as part of their investigation the police constructed a photo array to show to three eyewitnesses, all of whom identified Jackson. (¶¶2, 10-11). The array consisted of photos of Jackson and five other persons.
Joinder — multiple incidents of armed robbery, two of which also involved homicide. Identification — suggestiveness of photo array
State v. Deontaye Terrel Lusk, 2012AP587-CR, 2012AP588-CR, 2012AP589-CR, & 2012AP590-CR, District 1, 7/16/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP587-CR; 2012AP588-CR; 2012AP589-CR; 2012AP590-CR
Joinder
Lusk was charged in four cases with crimes arising from five armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery that occurred in April, May, June, and July, 2009. In two of the robberies the victim was killed,
Eyewitness identification evidence; independent basis for identification despite suggestive identification procedure
State v. Alexander Jerome Wiley, 2012AP71-CR, District 1, 12/11/12
court of appeals decision (3 judge; not recommended for publication); case activity
Wiley, a co-defendant in a reckless homicide case, moved the circuit court to exclude the in-court identification testimony of an eyewitness to the crime who had picked Wiley out of a photo array. He argued that the in-court identification was tainted because the photo array was unduly suggestive.
Interfering with Child Custody, § 948.31(2) – Elements; Sexual Assault – Multiplicity; Mug Shot – Admissibility
State v. Scott E. Ziegler, 2012 WI 73, on certification; case activity
Interfering with Child Custody, § 948.31(2) – Elements
Language in State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis. 2d 393, 742 N.W.2d 332, that one method of violating § 948.31(2) (interference with child custody) requires the parent’s “initial permission” to take child, is now “withdrawn”:
¶52 Pursuant to the plain language of Wis.
Ineffective Assistance – Photo Array; Ineffective Assistance – Generally; Ineffective Assistance – Postconviction Counsel, Generally
State v. Kwesi B. Amonoo, 2011AP566, District 1, 1/24/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Amonoo: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity
Amonoo fails to show that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance with respect to pretrial identification procedure (context: “sufficient reason” to overcome serial litigation bar following direct appeal):
¶15 Amonoo contends that of all the persons pictured in the photo array, he was the only one wearing a jacket.
Eyewitness ID Instructions and …
The Federal Evidence Blog gauges the impact of last-week’s decision relegating “happenstance” but suggestive ID procedure to jury (rather than due process) determination. Pointing out that Perry highlights 5 “protections” against unreliable IDs, the post keys on appropriate jury instructions (and promises to “review some of these [other] key protections in upcoming posts”; might therefore be worth your while to check that site for updates).
Identification Procedure – Improper Law Enforcement (vs. “Happenstance”)
Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, 1/11/12, affirming State v. Perry (N.H. sup. ct. 11/18/10)
For purposes of due process, a pretrial identification isn’t suppressible unless the product of improper law enforcement activity.
We have not extended pretrial screening for reliability to cases in which the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement officers. Petitioner requests that we do so because of the grave risk that mistaken identification will yield a miscarriage of justice.1 Our decisions,
Line-Up
State v. Jose A. Reas-Mendez, 2010AP1485-CR, District 1, 8/23/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Reas-Mendez: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
The victim’s pretrial lineup identification of Reas-Mendez isn’t suppressible: the lineup was comprised of “four men, all of generally the same build, in the same type of clothing, with dark, shoulder-length hair, approximately of the same age, and wearing bandanas covering their faces from the tops of their noses down,”