On Point blog, page 1 of 32
Seventh Circuit denies habeas petition from Wisconsin defendant because undisclosed exculpatory evidence was cumulative to evidence provided to trial counsel.
Jeffrey Hineman v. Daisy Chase, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 25-2000, 7/20/26
The Seventh Circuit reversed the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s order granting a petition for habeas corpus after the petitioner was convicted of first-degree sexual assault in Racine County. The Court held that SCOW’s decision that evidence favorable to the petitioner and not disclosed by the State was cumulative to evidence that was available to trial counsel was not contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by SCOTUS.
SCOTUS reinstates murder conviction because clearly established federal law does not require jury to determine legality of defendant’s confession.
McCarthy v. Hernandez, USSC No. 25-748, 6/22/2026, reversing a decision of the 2nd Circuit, Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS reversed the court of appeals’ decision granting habeas relief to a man convicted in 2016 of murdering a six-year old boy in 1979 because the lower court did not correctly apply clearly established federal law regarding the jury’s role in assessing the legality of the defendant’s confessions.
SCOTUS reverses and holds that appellate court erroneously considered newly-discovered evidence in ruling against defendant
Whitton v. Dixon, USSC No. 25-580, 6/1/2026, reversing a per curiam decision of the 11th Circuit, Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
In an unusual defense win involving “peculiar” conduct by the Eleventh Circuit, SCOTUS wades through the thicket of habeas law and reverse and remands for further consideration of Whitton’s Giglio claim.
SCOTUS grants habeas relief to death row inmate because trial court did not determine whether state’s proffered race-neutral bases for excluding potential black jurors were pretextual
Pitchford v. Cain, USSC No. 24-7351, 5/28/2026, reversing 126 F. 4th 422 (5th Cir. 2025); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
Batson v. Kentucky held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits prosecutors from exercising peremptory challenges based on race. A three-step process is used to implement Batson. First, the defendant must make a prima facie case that a peremptory strike was based on race. If the defendant meets this burden, the state must provide a race-neutral reason for the challenged strike. The defendant may then rebut the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason by showing it was pretextual.
SCOTUS held, in a 5-4 decision, that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson when it affirmed the defendant’s conviction for murder after the trial court did not address whether the prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for striking four of five potential black jurors were pretextual. The Court also found the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined the facts because it concluded the defendant waived his Batson challenge even though he was not provided an opportunity to rebut the state’s proffered race-neutral explanations and was later assured by the trial court that his Batson objection was preserved for the record.
7th Circuit reverses Wisconsin defendant’s district court habeas win
Maurice J. Holt v. Gary Boughton, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 24-3346, 3/30/26
Holt was tried and convicted of armed robbery and other crimes after three men entered an apartment and took property at gunpoint. After exhausting his state appeals, Holt sought habeas relief in federal court and the district court granted his petition. The 7th circuit disagrees and reverses.
7th Circuit scolds state but denies habeas relief on Brady and Trombetta/Youngblood claims
Chong L. Lee v. Bradley Mlodzik, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 24-2647, 3/24/26
“The State of Wisconsin violated Chong Lee’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights while prosecuting him for murder[,]” as it failed to disclose that it had interviewed 3 eyewitnesses and intentionally destroyed recordings of those interviews to ensure he could not obtain them. Despite these Brady and Trombetta/Youngblood violations, the 7th Circuit affirms the remedy applied by the state trial court.
SCOTUS reverses decision granting new homicide trial and accepts cert. to review geofence warrants; while Justice Jackson dissents from shutting courthouse door to prison inmates.
In its January 2026 orders, SCOTUS reminds the Fourth Circuit about AEDPA deference in reversing decision ordering a new trial and grants certiorari to determine whether a geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, while Justice Jackson dissents from banning frequent inmate filers from commencing a case without paying the filing fee.
SCOTUS reverses COA order granting habeas relief because it relied on ground not raised by parties.
Terrence Clark v. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney, USSC No. 25-52, 11/24/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS reverses Fourth Circuit’s order granting habeas relief because the court relied on ground that was not presented by the parties.
COA calculates discharge date on sentences for crimes committed between 1999 and 2003 in published case.
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Christopher P. Kawleski v. State, 2022AP1129, 7/3/25, District IV, (recommended for publication); case activity
COA recommends publication in a case addressing how to calculate the maximum discharge date for a defendant sentenced to a bifurcated sentence on a felony between 1999 and 2003 upon release from reconfinement after extended supervision was revoked.
Seventh Circuit rejects habeas appeal focusing on “search for the truth” jury instruction
Michael Williams v. Michael Meisner, No. 23-3268, 6/16/25
In a case that likely signals the end of a long legal battle over a Wisconsin jury instruction telling jurors to “search for the truth,” the Seventh Circuit holds that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.