On Point blog, page 1 of 11
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.
Seventh Circuit denies habeas petition because Supreme Court precedent was unclear whether de facto life sentence for juvenile considered capable of reform violated Eighth Amendment.
Curtis L. Walker v. Dan Cromwell, No. 23-2240, 6/16/25
Despite making a “strong case for relief” that his de-facto life sentence for a homicide committed when he was 17 violated the Eighth Amendment, the Seventh Circuit held that Curtis Walker’s habeas petition could not overcome the heavy burden imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to show that the state court decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court because the Court’s precedents were not “a model of clarity.”
Seventh Circuit affirms in Wisconsin-originating habeas on juror intrusion claim; analyzes Wisconsin’s no-merit procedure
Leon Carter v. Lizzie Tiegels, No. 23-1266, 4/24/25
In a knotty habeas case, the complexities of habeas corpus law mean that Carter’s challenges to how COA handled his no-merit appeal and an underlying (and unique) claim of juror intrusion do not merit relief.
Seventh Circuit retrospectively evaluates habeas petitioner’s competence at his 2006 trial; despite low IQ and mental illness, court denies due process and IAC claims.
Jacob Alan Powers v. Jon Noble, No. 24-2134, 3/25/25
The Seventh Circuit found that Jacob Powers was competent to stand trial in a Wisconsin court in 2006 for sexual assault of a child and child enticement. Although Powers’ IQ was in the borderline/mild mental retardation range; his trial testimony, trial counsel’s decision not to challenge his competency, and two experts’ findings that he was competent convinced the Court that he reasonably understood the charges against him, trial procedures, and could assist his lawyer in his defense. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s order denying Powers’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
7th Circuit denies habeas relief to Wisconsin prisoner by holding it cannot consider new evidence supporting petitioner’s claim
Breion S. Woodson v. Bradley Mlodzik, No. 22-3153, 2/28/25
Although Woodson has new evidence seeming to suggest he was sentenced on the basis of inaccurate information, the complex procedural rules of habeas litigation require affirmance.
Eastern District grants petition for writ of habeas corpus in case alleging inaccurate information at sentencing
Jared L. Spencer v. Michael Meisner, 21-cv-0326 (E.D. Wis. 4/26/24).
In an intriguing habeas win, the district court swats away the usual arguments about “reliance” and “harmlessness” in order to find that Spencer’s constitutional right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information was violated.
COA affirms conviction despite trial judge’s “vocal opinions” about COA’s prior decision granting plea withdrawal
State v. Matthew Curtis Stills, 2022AP1390-CR, 2/13/24, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity
This 2016 case out of Milwaukee County has a bit of a backstory and an unfortunate ending for Sills. In 2020, the court of appeals reversed Sills’ conviction based on a Bangert violation related to the circuit court’s failure to advise Sills of the maximum fine. Thereafter, Sills went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, compared to the 15 years he received after his original plea. This time around, Sills raises two issues on appeal: (1) that trial court’s objective bias violated his right to a fair trial and (2) that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Unlike his first appeal, the court affirms rejects his claims and affirms his new conviction.
Seventh Circuit denies habeas relief; holds that WI COA reasonably applied case law regarding invocation of right to remain silent
Johnnie Mertice Wesley v. Randall Hepp, No. 22-2968, 1/5/24
Wesley’s challenges to law enforcement conduct which resulted in him giving inculpatory statements fail, as the Seventh Circuit concludes that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied SCOTUS precedent.
Defense win! Seventh Circuit affirms habeas grant, holds right to counsel attaches when CR-215 form completed
Nelson Garcia, Jr., v. Randall Hepp, No. 21-3268, 4/25/23, affirming Nelson Garcia, Jr. v. Brian Foster
A long line of Supreme Court cases holds that a criminal defendant’s right to counsel attaches when he or she becomes a criminal defendant: when he or she is formally accused of a crime. Most recently, in Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), the Court applied this rule to conclude that the defendant had the right to counsel when a police officer brought him before a judge and the judge found probable cause, committed him to jail, and set bail. In Milwaukee County, though, when a person is arrested without a warrant, judges routinely find probable cause, order detention, and set bail without seeing the person. As happened in Garcia’s case, an officer presents a judge a form–the CR-215–detailing the basis for suspecting the person; the judge can then check a box indicating that probable cause exists and can also set bond. The form is then distributed to, among others, the person being held.
7th Circuit: Shackling during trial didn’t undermine right to present complete defense
Richard Shirley v. Lizzie Tegels, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 18-1713, 3/8/23
Shirley was shackled while he testified at his jury trial for 1st degree reckless homicide. In this federal habeas appeal, he argued that the shackling violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense. The 7th Circuit denied relief because no SCOTUS case clearly establishes that shackling a defendant while he is testifying violates that right.