On Point: 41. Trial Procedures

State v. Sidney Clark, 2010AP790, District 1, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clark: John A. Pray; case activity

Clark can’t show prejudice from the deficient performance he alleges, therefore he isn’t entitled to a Machner hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶21      A postconviction hearing is necessary to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  See State v.

State v. Jason L. Miller, 2011 WI App 34; for Miller: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Miller BiC; State Resp.; Reply

If the stun belt (or other restraint) isn’t visible to the jury, the trial court need not consider its necessity before requiring that the defendant wear it during trial. “Because there is no evidence that the jury could see the stun belt,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; State Resp.

Interpreter

¶6        We begin with Kedinger’s claim that he was improperly denied an interpreter.  In Strook v. Kedinger, 2009 WI App 31, ¶¶19, 21, 316 Wis. 2d 548, 766 N.W.2d 219, we noted that once a party properly notifies the trial court of the need for an interpreter,

John M. Stephenson v. Levenhagen, 7th Cir No. 09-2924, 08/26/2010

7th Cir decision; petition for rehearing denied 1/14/11, 3 dissents from denial of en banc review

Habeas – Effective Assistance – Stun Belt

Counsel’s failure to object to placement of stun belt on Stephenson during trial was held by the state court to be deficient: accepting that conclusion (albeit with apparent reluctance), the federal court holds on habeas review that the deficiency wasn’t prejudicial.

State v. Jason M. Bruckbauer, 2009AP1823-CR, District 4, 8/19/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Bruckbauer: Dennis Schertz; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Harmless Error

Any error in admission of a pretrial ID of Bruckbauer from a photo array was harmless, where: the challenged ID didn’t directly implicate him in the homicide but merely placed him at the scene;

Dane Co. DHS v. Laura E.N., No. 2010AP1172, District 4, 7/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti

TPR – Evidence

Evidence that the mother was caring for an infant son not under CHIPS order wasn’t relevant to her ability to meet conditions for the return of her older daughters who were the subjects of the TPR proceeding, ¶¶13-16.

State v. Juan M. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, PFR filed 5/6/09
For Sandoval: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The State need not disclose bona fide rebuttal evidence, the test for which turns on whether the evidence “only became necessary at rebuttal” (as opposed to whether it would have been admissible or useful in the State’s case-in-chief), ¶¶30-34.

¶33   We are convinced that the State satisfied the law of Wisconsin in this case.

State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208

For Doss: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Closing argument remarks addressed to Doss’s failure to explain missing funds did not amount to a comment on her failure to testify:

¶81      …

[F]or a prosecutor’s comment to constitute an improper reference to a defendant’s failure to testify,

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:

¶11. A defendant’s right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Ct. App. 1994). A defendant may, however, waive the right to testify. State v. Wilson, 179 Wis. 2d 660,

State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2003 WI App 168, PFR granted, affirmed, 2004 WI 70
For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella
Amici: Keith A. Findley, John T. Savee, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL
Issue/Holding: ¶9 n.4:

We remind counsel and the court of our concerns about off-the-record discussions. See Coston v. Joseph P.