≡ Menu

D. Ineffective Assistance

State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2004 WI 70, affirming 2003 WI App 168; habeas relief denied, McDowell v. Kingston, 497 F.3d 757 (7th Cir 2007) For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella Amici: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray Issue/Holding: (Given the significance of the holding, at-length quoting is required in regard to counsel’s performance obligations relative to a client whose testimony… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: “Second, Arredondo claims that his trial attorney failed to impeach Garza’s testimony with false statements Garza made to the police. This claim fails on both the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Arredondo cannot show prejudice because Garza admitted on direct-examination that… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. John R. Maloney, 2004 WI App 141, affirmed, 2005 WI 74 For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman Issue/Holding: ¶18. Maloney complains trial counsel invited a Haseltine violation against him by asking on cross-examination whether Skorlinski believed anything Maloney had told him in the investigation. See State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984). We disagree.… ¶21… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶49. Arredondo further claims that his trial lawyer should have moved to admit pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 908.045(1) (declarant unavailable) the transcript of Arredondo’s testimony at the 1995 sexual-assault trial. Arredondo contends that the trial court would have… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶27. Arredondo argues that his trial lawyer was ineffective for advising him not to testify. We disagree. At the Machner hearing, Arredondo’s attorney testified that he advised Arredondo not to testify for two main, albeit related, reasons. First, the lawyer testified… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63 For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta Issue/Holding: Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion based on his assessment that the arrest was supported by probable cause; “the highly incriminating evidence against Cash known” to the authorities before the arrest in fact supported probable cause… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04 For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to research admissibility of testimony which controlling caselaw plainly regards as confidential was deficient: ¶23. While Swierenga’s testimony was admissible, Geske’s was not. Crowell, which Greve reaffirmed, plainly instructs that information obtained during a court-ordered… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael A. DeLain, 2004 WI App 79, PFR granted, on other grds. For DeLain: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: Trial counsel’s failure to “investigate and present evidence of exculpatory prior consistent statements DeLain made to co-workers” was not the product of deficient performance, given that DeLain never told counsel about these remarks, and that counsel interviewed… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS