On Point: 4. Improper factors

State v. Anthony R. Pico, 2015AP1799-CR, petition for review granted 10/10/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (composed by On Point):

1. Did the Court of Appeals apply the proper standard of review to the trial court’s findings of fact regarding trial counsel’s conduct and strategy?

2. Did trial counsel perform deficiently by failing to investigate Pico’s serious head injury, and did that deficient performance prejudice Pico in pretrial proceedings and at trial?

3. Did the sentencing court impermissibly burden Pico’s privilege against self-incrimination?

4. Did the Court of Appeals err in concluding that Pico waived issues not raised by cross-appeal?

5. Is it permissible for a postconviction court to admit and consider expert testimony by another criminal defense attorney regarding the conduct of trial counsel?

State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2016AP2483-CR, 7/19/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 11/13/17, affirmed in part and reversed in part, 2018 WI 85; case activity (including briefs)

Patrick Dalton was badly injured in a car crash. He argues on appeal that there was no exigency justifying the warrantless blood draw that revealed his intoxication; he also argues the circuit court erred when it considered his refusal to consent to the blood draw as an aggravating factor for sentencing.

For latest on this subject, see today’s issue of Inside Track, which features comments by Wisconsin’s expert on evidence-based sentencing, Professor Cecelia Klingele.

State v. Jamal L. Williams, 2017 WI App 46, cross petitions for review granted 10/10/17, reversed in part and affirmed in part, 2018 WI 59; case activity (including briefs)

It’s looking like “DNA surcharge Day” in the District 2 court of appeals. Williams argued that because he had been ordered to provide a DNA sample and pay the $250 surcharge in a prior case, retroactive application of Wisconsin’s recent mandatory DNA surcharge statute in this case violated the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court of appeals agreed.

Recall that SCOTUS recently ordered the Solicitor General to file an amicus brief on the question of whether Loomis’ petition for writ of certiorari should be granted or denied. Here is the SG’s amicus brief. It argues that “the use of actuarial risk assessments raises novel constitutional questions that may merit this Court’s attention in a future case.” Amicus Br. at 12. However, says the SG, Loomis is not a good vehicle for addressing th0se issues because, among other things:

State v. Loomis has made the NYTimes again. See today’s article by Adam Liptak: Sent to Prison by Software’s Secret Algorithms.

This week Wired ran an op-ed arguing that courts should stop using algorithms to set bail and sentence defendants until some ground rules are set. Yes, it discusses Compas and State v. Loomis. But beyond that it describes what could happen if courts move from using simple algorithms to using deep learning algorithms known as neural networks to sentence someone. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Consider a scenario in which the defense attorney calls a developer of a neural-network-based risk assessment tool to the witness stand to challenge the “high risk” score that could affect her client’s sentence.

Last summer, SCOW held that, if used properly, a circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing does not violate due process. See State v. Loomis and our post. Loomis filed a petition for writ of certiorari which presents this question for review:

State courts increasingly are relying on risk assessment instruments at sentencing. When the risk assessment instrument used is proprietary, as the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (“COMPAS”) software is, defendants have very little information about how the risk is analyzed. Is it a violation of a defendant’s constitutional right to due process for a trial court to rely on such risk assessment results at sentencing:

a.  because the proprietary nature of COMPAS prevents a defendant from challenging the accuracy and scientific validity of the risk assessment; and

b.  because COMPAS assessments take gender and race into account in formulating the risk assessment?

SCOTUS ordered the State of Wisconsin to respond to the petition, which according to this study, happens in maybe 2-3% of cases. But today SCOTUS took an even more unusual step by issuing a “CVSG”–a call for the views of the acting U.S. Solicitor General, even though the United States is not a party to Loomis v. Wisconsin.

Buck v. Davis, USSC No. 15-8049, 2017 WL 685534 (February 22, 2017), reversing and remanding Buck v. Stephens, 623 Fed. Appx. 668 (5th Cir. 2015) (unpublished); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Buck was found guilty of capital murder. Under state law, the jury could impose a death sentence only if it found Buck was likely to commit acts of violence in the future. At sentencing Buck’s attorney called Walter Quijano, a psychologist, to give an opinion on that issue. Though the psychologist testified Buck probably would not engage in violent conduct, he also said that race is one factor in assessing a person’s propensity for violence and that Buck was statistically more likely to act violently because he is black. The jury sentenced Buck to death. The Supreme Court, by a 7-to-2 vote, holds Buck’s attorney was ineffective.

State v. Charles J. Hartleben, 2016AP1066-CR, District 3, 2/14/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A defendant is denied due process at sentencing where the author of his PSI is married to the DA who prosecuted him. State v. Suchocki. Ditto where a counselor who assessed the defendant for his PSI also treated his victim. State v. Stafford.  In these situations, bias on the part of the PSI writer or counselor is implied as a matter of law.  But here the court of appeals found no “implied bias” where the author of Hartleben’s PSI worked with probation agents who were Hartleben’s victims in an earlier case.