On Point blog, page 2 of 2
Exculpatory Evidence – Police Personnel Records; Postconviction Procedure – Serial Litigation Bar: Supplement to Still-Pending Motion
State v. Christopher J. Anderson, 2009AP3053-CR, District 1, 3/27/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: 2008AP504-CR
Anderson’s prior appeal established that “the trial court erred when it denied his request for an in camera review of [police] personnel files because he had both a constitutional and statutory right to any exculpatory or impeachment evidence in the files,”
Habeas – Brady Claim
Wetzel v. John Lambert, USSC No. 11-38, 2/21/12, vacating and remanding 633 F.3d 126 (3rd Cir. 2011)
Lambert claimed that state prosecutors withheld exculpatory information: a “police activity sheet” that arguably suggested someone other than, or perhaps in addition to, himself committed the offense (robbery and murder); and that could have been used to impeach the principal state’s witness. The state (Pennsylvania) court deemed the information too ambiguous to show that someone else had committed the robbery,
Habeas – Recantation, Brady claim, ineffective assistance of counsel
Samuel Morgan v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 10-3155, 11/7/11
Habeas – Recantation
The Illinois state court didn’t mishandle either the facts or applicable law, and its rejection of State witness Prater’s post-trial recantation as incredible wasn’t unreasonable. The petitioner’s task is to “show[] that the state court determined an underlying factual issue against the clear and convincing weight of the evidence” – though the recantation here is consistent with the physical evidence,
James J. Jardine v. Dittmann, 7th Cir No. 09-3929, 9/14/11
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.
Juan Smith v. Louisiana, USSC No. 10-8145, cert granted 6/13/11
Decision below: State ex rel. Smith v. Cain, 992 So. 2d 928, 2008 La. LEXIS 1772 (La., 2008), writ denied State v. Smith, 2010 La. LEXIS 2202 (La., Sept. 24, 2010)
Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):
In this Louisiana criminal case, the state trial court, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, without making any factual findings, or providing any reasons for their rulings,
Plea-Withdrawal – Hearing – Exculpatory Evidence
State v. William M. O’Donnell, 2009AP2962, District 2, 11/17/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for O’Donnell: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; O’Donnell BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Because the evidence allegedly suppressed by the State wasn’t exculpatory, O’Donnell wasn’t entitled to an evidentiary on his postconviction motion asserting suppression of exculpatory material.
¶10 A circuit court, in its discretion,
Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence, Undisclosed Exculpatory Evidence, Waiver Rule; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Sentencing
State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2759-CR, District 1, 11/2/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Guilty Plea – Withdrawal – Presentence
The trial court properly applied the “fair and just reason” standard to Harris’s presentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea, ¶¶5-9.
The particular grounds asserted – no factual basis for plea;
Prosecutorial Failure to Disclose Evidence; Deficient Performance – Failure to Suppress Showup
State v. Melvin G. Walton, No. 2009AP001304-CR, District I, 6/22/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Walton: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Prosecutorial Failure to Disclose Evidence
¶28 The State has two separate evidence-disclosure responsibilities: a statutory responsibility imposed by WIS. STAT. § 971.23 and a constitutional responsibility imposed by Brady v. Maryland,
Appellate Procedure: State’s Waiver; Exculpatory Evidence: State’s Failure to Preserve
State v. Kyle Lee Huggett, 2010 WI App 69; for Huggett: Craig A. Mastantuono; BiC; Resp; Reply
The State forfeited a potential appellate argument by conceding it in the trial court, in response to Huggett’s postconviction motion, ¶14.
Unmentioned by the court: the State is the appellant. Why does that matter? Because the general rule is that the respondent on appeal may raise any argument,
State v. Clifford Dewayne Walker, 2008AP3180-CR, District I, 3/9/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); Resp. Br; Reply Br
Exculpatory Material
Defense had access to assertedly suppressed exculpatory material, hence no Brady violation.
Effective Assistance
Counsel had valid tactical reason for cross-examination approach; failure to file discovery demand, object to certain testimony: “The defendant must affirmatively prove prejudice. … Walker has not even attempted to do so.