On Point: B. Federal

federal habeas decision (pdf file: here), granting relief in State v. Fischer, 2010 WI 6; respondent’s Rule 59 motion to amend judgment denied 1/7/11

Habeas Review – Right to Present Defense – Expert Opinion, Based PBT

Preventing Fisher from adducing expert opinion he wasn’t driving with a prohibited alcohol content based on analysis of his PBT, because of the absolute evidentiary bar under § 343.303  on PBTs,

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 Circuit decision; on habeas review of Wis. opinion No. 2005AP2599-CR

Habeas – Filing Deadline – Tolling

The District Court had authority to grant Socha’s pre-filing, pre-deadline request to extend the 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) deadline for his habeas petition, made on the ground of equitable tolling.

… First, there is no absolute bar imposed by Article III on judicial actions closely connected with a case or controversy that has not yet been filed.

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 decision

Habeas – Filing Deadline – DNA Motion as Tolling

Price’s postconviction motion for DNA testing in Illinois state court didn’t toll the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas deadline, and his habeas petition is therefore deemed untimely.

The court’s analysis relates to Illinois procedure. As will be seen, Wisconsin’s is meaningfully different and should yield a different conclusion. First, the obvious: subject to highly exceptional circumstances,

Alan Ward v. Deppisch, 7th Cir No. 08-2809, 07/23/2010

7th circuit decision, review of unpublished court of appeals decision

Habeas – Procedural Default

The state argues that Ward procedurally defaulted his claim because he failed to fairly present the Wisconsin courts with a federal issue, and the state courts ruled against Ward based on adequate and independent state law grounds. We disagree. A review of Ward’s postconviction motion before the state court shows that he fairly presented a federal issue.

seventh circuit decision; denial of rehearing and en banc, 10/28/10

Habeas – Filing Deadline

For purposes of the federal habeas 1-year statute of limitations, a state court’s decision to accept an untimely filing makes the postconviction review “properly filed” but it doesn’t make it retrospectively “pending” so as to toll the limitation period.

Griffith seeks federal habeas review of his state court conviction. The limitation provision requires filing within within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review,” 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.

Freddie L. Byers, Jr., v. Basinger, 7th Cir No. 09-1833, 7/9/10

7th Circuit decision

Habeas – Exhaustion

To exhaust a federal claim, a 2254 petitioner must have “fairly presented” it to the state court.

… We use four factors to evaluate whether a petitioner has “fairly presented” his claim: “1) whether the petitioner relied on federal cases that engage in a constitutional analysis; 2) whether the petitioner relied on state cases which apply a constitutional analysis to similar facts;