On Point: 5. Particular issues

7th circuit decision

Habeas – Limits on Cros-Examination

State court limitation on impeachment of a witness — so as to exclude that portion of a pre-trial conversation containing the defendant’s “self-serving,” thus inadmissible hearsay, statement — wasn’t an unreasonable application of controlling caselaw.

Determination of whether “state interests, including those reflected in the state’s evidentiary rules, may need to bend in order to ensure that defendants have the right to confront the witnesses against them …

7th Cir. decision; Order denying rehearing and amending opinion, 10/10/15

Habeas – Voluntary Statement – Juvenile

State court determination that juvenile’s custodial statement to police was voluntary wasn’t objectively unreasonable., notwithstanding his age (15), borderline intellectual functioning and lack of criminal background. “(I)t is the totality of the circumstances underlying a juvenile confession, rather than the presence or absence of a single circumstance, that determines whether or not the confession should be deemed voluntary.”

2nd Circuit court of appeals decision

Federal Habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254) – Filing Deadline – Brady Claim

The 2254 filing deadline is one year from the date the state-court conviction becomes “final,” subject to certain exceptions, including one which restarts the limitation period from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence,” 28 U.S.C.

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Miranda Waiver

Viewed through the deferential lens of 2254 habeas review, a state court finding that the severely mentally impaired Collins knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights an incriminatory statement was not unreasonable.

Collins had a Wechsler-scale IQ in the low- to mid-60s, exacerbated by a brain aneurysm that damaged his frontal lobes and left him with a language disorder.

John Ebert v. Gaetz, 7th Circuit No. 09-1627, 6/23/10

7th circuit court of appeals decision

When the ineffective assistance claim is based on counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress, as it is here, the defendant must also prove “that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice.” Kimmelman v.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Ineffective Assistance – NGI Defense – Habeas Review

Counsel performed deficiently by failing to: adequately prep his NGI expert witness, who had performed only a competency evaluation of Wilson and wasn’t given the opportunity for a reinterview with the distinct purpose of an NGI evaluation; present testimony of family members familiar with Wilson’s mental deterioration; and retain another expert.

Given the gravity of the charge against Wilson and the ample evidence that he was driven to kill Fischer by an insane delusion,

7th circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas Review – Exculpatory Evidence
Statements of three eyewitnesses, not disclosed to the defendant, that would have implicated the state’s principal eyewitness and otherwise impeached his credibility and that of 2 other state’s witnesses was “material.” It is reasonably probable that disclosure would have netted a different result, and the state court’s contrary conclusion unreasonably applied clearly established law.

The court stresses,

Renico v. Lett, USSC No. 09-338, 5/3/10

The state court’s conclusion of manifest necessity for mistrial where the foreperson reported inability to reach unanimity wasn’t unreasonable, hence grant of habeas relief is vacated:

… (T)rial judges may declare a mistrial “whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity” for doing so. Id., at 580. The decision to declare a mistrial is left to the “sound discretion” of the judge,

Berghuis v. Smith, USSC No. 08-1402, 3/30/10

Defendants have Sixth Amendment right to impartial jury drawn from fair cross section of community. To establish prima facie violation of this “fair-cross-section,” requirement, a defendant must prove that: (1) a group qualifying as “distinctive” (2) is not fairly and reasonably represented in jury venires, and (3) “systematic exclusion” in the jury-selection process accounts for the underrepresentation. Various methods have been proposed to test underrepresentation,

7th circuit court of appeals decision; habeas review of: Wis court of appeals decision, 03AP3252

Habeas – Supplement Record

… Although we generally decline to supplement the record on appeal with materials not before the district court, we have not applied this position categorically. See, e.g., Ruvalcaba v. Chandler, 416 F.3d 555, 562 n.2 (7th Cir. 2005) (in habeas case,