On Point: 29. Postconv. Motions

State v. David McAlister, Sr., 2014AP2561, petition granted 9/11/17; affirmed 4/18/18; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (copied from petition for review)

1. The central issue at trial was whether McAlister participated in the charged robberies. The state’s evidence on that point consisted entirely of the allegations of two confessed participants seeking to mitigate the consequences of their own misconduct. The jury knew that the state’s witnesses had a motive to falsely accuse McAlister but those witnesses denied under oath having done so. Under these circumstances, is newly discovered evidence from three separate witnesses swearing that the state’s witnesses admitted prior to trial that they intended to falsely accuse McAlister “cumulative” and “merely tend to impeach the credibility of witnesses” such that it could not support a newly discovered evidence claim?

2. Whether the allegations of McAlister’s §974.06 motion were sufficient to require a new trial and therefore an evidentiary hearing on his claim.

If California and Texas can do it, can Wisconsin do it too? Click here to see Professor Edward Imwinkelried’s new article on revising postconviction relief statutes to cover convictions resting on subsequently invalidated expert testimony. Who can name a type of expert testimony that has been recently invalidated?

State v. Jesse Steven Poehlman, 2016AP1074, 7/5/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Poehlman with various counts relating to two alleged incidents of sexual assault and battery of his wife–one in December 2014 and one in February 2015. The jury acquitted as to the earlier incident and convicted as to the latter. The court of appeals rejects his arguments that he must receive a new trial.

SCOW’s recent decision in State v. Jeffrey Denny, which restricted the availability of postconviction DNA testing in Wisconsin, was a real heart-breaker. Essentially, SCOW held that to get state-funded DNA testing the defendant has to prove the results would conclusively remove him from the scene of the crime. In a decision the EvidenceProf Blog calls a “landmark,” the Maryland court of appeals has reached the opposite conclusion. Read about it here.

State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 2015AP1598-CR, 3/29/17, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Congrats to the Remington Center for a winning a new trial in the interests of justice based on newly-discovered, 3rd-party perpetrator evidence 19 years after Scheidell was convicted of 1st degree sexual assault and armed robbery. Even better, their win was affirmed on appeal!

State v. Jeffrey C. Denny, 2017 WI 17, reversing a published court of appeals decision; 2015AP202-CR, 2/28/2017; case activity (including briefs)

In State v. Moran, 2005 WI 115, 284 Wis. 2d 24, 700 N.W.2d 884, the supreme court unanimously held that Wis. Stat. § 974.07, the postconviction DNA testing statute, provides two routes for a convicted defendant seeking exoneration: a defendant satisfying certain basic criteria may pay for his own testing of physical evidence; one making a stronger showing of potential significance may secure such testing at public expense. The court now closes off the first, self-paid route.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs); petition for review

Issues (composed by On Point)

(1)  May a prosecutor argue that a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test shows consciousness of guilt?

(2)  When a circuit court denies a postconviction motion based on arguably inapplicable case law, must the defendant ask the circuit court to reconsider its ruling in order to preserve for appeal the claim that the case law doesn’t apply?

State v. Armin G. Wand, III, 2015AP1366-CR, 9/8/16, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Armin Wand and his brother Jeremy were convicted of crimes relating to a fire at Wand’s residence that killed his three sons, seriously injured his wife and caused the death of the fetus she was carrying. Before he pled, Wand moved to suppress statements he made to officers on two consecutive days; the court suppressed the first day’s as involuntary but admitted the second day’s. He appeals on various grounds connected to the admission of those later statements.

Making a Murderer fans may be interested to see the Motion for Post-Conviction Scientific Testing that Steven Avery filed in the Manitowoc county Circuit Court on Friday.  His lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, told reporters this comprehensive testing will “get to the bottom of who killed Teresa Halbach.” Click here to read Avery’s motion.

State v. Jermaine D. Greer, Sr., 2015AP692, District 4, 7/21/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Greer filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under § 974.06. It is his fourth postconviction motion and—like his third postconviction motion, which he also filed pro se—it argued he is entitled to withdraw his pleas. Greer doesn’t explain why the grounds for plea withdrawal he raises in his fourth motion could not have been raised in his third motion,