On Point: 22. Habeas corpus

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief on review of Wis. COA No. 2008AP1533-CR; prior history: 2001AP713-CR, 1995AP1856-CR

Habeas – Exculpatory Evidence – Available to Defendant

Jardine argues that the State suppressed exculpatory evidence, namely that post-conviction testing of the gun he admittedly possessed but denied using to club the victim didn’t reveal the presence of the victim’s DNA.

seventh circuit court of appeals decision; cert granted, 4/30/12

Padilla v. Kentucky: Retroactivity – Habeas Review 

The holding of Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010), that as in incident of effective representation, “counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” is a “new rule”

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,

Joseph Muniz v. Smith, 6th Cir. No. 09-2324, 7/29/11

sixth circuit court of appeal decision

Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Sleeping Counsel 

The fact that counsel has slept through a portion of trial does not, alone, amount to denial of counsel so as to require relief under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), rather than inquiry into the prejudice component of  Strickland v.

MC Winston v. Boatwright, 7th Cir No. 10-1156, 8/19/11

seventh circuit court of appeals decision, denying habeas relief on review of unpublished decision in 2003AP3412 and 2005AP1255

Habeas – Jury Selection – Ineffective Assistance – Defense Counsel’s Discriminatory Use of Peremptories

In a nutshell, this case presents the question whether the constitutional rights of the petitioner, MC Winston,

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Certificate of Appealability

 Under § 2253(c)(2) of Title 28, “[a] certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” The Supreme Court has observed that an applicant has made a “substantial showing” where “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v.

Docket

Lower court decision: Clair v. Ayers, 9th Cir. Nos. 05-99005, 08-75135, 11/17/10

Question Presented:

At the end of ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent suddenly complained about and sought replacement of his court-appointed public defender with a new appointed lawyer. The district court refused, explaining that “it appears Petitioner’s counsel is doing a proper job”

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas – Successive Petition – Rule 60(b) Motion

A Rule 60 motion for relief from (habeas) judgment amounts to an impermissible successive petition – which the district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain – if it raises arguments forbidden by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) or (2), Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005). Although the district court held that Freeman had waived the issue (right to conflict-free counsel) before raising it in his Rule 60 motion,

Docket

Decision below: 623 F. 3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010)

Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):

1. WAS THERE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2253(C) AND TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER’S APPEAL?

2. WAS THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OUT OF TIME UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2244(D)(1) DUE TO “THE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL BY THE CONCLUSION OF DIRECT REVIEW OR THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR SEEKING SUCH REVIEW”?

Docket

Decision below:  Martinez v. Schriro, 623 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010)

Question Presented:

Whether a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first postconviction proceeding, has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.