On Point: e. Evidence

Darryl J. Sutton v. Randy Pfister, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-2888, 2016 WL 4446561, 8/24/16

Sutton filed a habeas petition challenging his sexual assault conviction on the ground the evidence connecting him with the crime was obtained by the state through a conceded violation of the Fourth Amendment in a different case. The district court ruled in his favor, but the court of appeals holds there’s no Fourth Amendment violation because the evidence would inevitably have been discovered.

Steven D. Lisle, Jr., v. Guy Pierce, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3047, 2016 WL 4245489, 8/11/16

Lisle sought federal habeas relief from his murder and aggravated battery convictions, arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the admission of a hearsay statement identifying him as the man who shot two people, one fatally. But the state courts reasonably applied clearly established federal law on the question, so his quest for relief is denied.

“DIGs” as in “dismisse[s] as improvidently granted,” that is, leaving the Seventh Circuit’s grant of habeas relief intact.

Question presented

Did the Seventh Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a long line of this Court’s decisions by awarding habeas relief in the absence of clearly established precedent from this Court?

Renardo Carter v. Timothy Douma, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-3312, 8/6/15

Carter’s trial counsel failed to object to a police officer’s testimony about the hearsay statements of a confidential informant who said Carter was involved in drug dealing. While the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably concluded that the failure to object didn’t prejudice Carter, the Seventh Circuit issues a useful warning about the improper use of the “course of investigation” rationale for admitting out-of-court statements.

Cory M. Welch v. Randall Hepp, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-1164, 7/14/15

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected Welch’s claim that he was denied a fair trial because of two improper comments by two witnesses. His habeas petition was denied by the district court, and the Seventh Circuit affirms, holding Welch has not shown that the Wisconsin appellate court’s decision was “so lacking in justification” that there is no possibility for “fairminded disagreement,” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011).

Lawrence Owens v. Stephen Duncan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 14-1419, 3/23/15, cert. petition granted, 10/1/15; petition dismissed as improvidently granted, 1/20/16

The Seventh Circuit grants habeas relief to Owens, who was convicted of murder after a bench trial, because the trial judge’s finding of guilt was based on evidence that did not exist and thus denied Owens’s right to due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 567 (1986) (“one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial,” quoting Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 485 (1978)).

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief in Wis COA No. 2008AP398-CR

Habeas – Duty to Preserve Apparent Exculpatory Evidence 

Pretrial destruction of car driven by McCarthy didn’t violate State’s duty to preserve exculpatory evidence, the court rejecting McCarthy’s argument that the destruction unconstitutionally impaired his affirmative defense of brake failure (against charge of causing great bodily harm by operating vehicle while under the influence,

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Certificate of Appealability

We pause briefly to note the district court’s error in denying a certificate of appealability in this case. The statute provides that a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to require a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,

7th circuit decision, reversed, Hardy v. Cross, USSC No. 11-74, 12/12/11

Habeas Review – Confrontation – Pre-Crawford (Ohio v. Roberts) Showing of Witness Unavailability

The state court (Illinois) unreasonably applied controlling Supreme Court precedent in finding good-faith efforts to secure the presence of the declarant, before determining that she was unavailable so that her first-trial testimony could be read to the jury at Cross’s re-trial.