State v. Britney M. Langlois, 2011AP166-CR, District 4/1, 3/6/12 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Langlois: Philip J. Brehm; case activity The court of appeals upholds a trial court finding that the prosecutor’s explanation for striking an African-American juror (recent conviction for disorderly conduct) was non-discriminatory: ¶33 After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the trial… Read more
13. Due Process
Dane Co. DHS v. Sophia S., 2011AP2639, District 4, 2/23/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sophia S.: Faun M. Moses; case activity Although the parent isn’t required to object to the sufficiency of evidence adduced in support of a default judgment on grounds for termination (the court rejecting the County’s argument on this point)… Read more
seventh circuit decision Habeas – Knowing Use of False Testimony (“Napue”) Due process prohibits knowing prosecutorial use of false testimony, Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). However, the prosecutor’s exploitation of Bland’s incorrect testimony on a potentially important point (the date his gun was confiscated) doesn’t support habeas relief on a Napue-type theory. Napue and Giglio hold… Read more
Chippewa County Dept. of Human Services v. James A., 2011AP2613, District 3, 2/7/12 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James A.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity ¶18 James does not allege Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) implicates a First Amendment right. Therefore, the threshold question is whether James’ conduct plainly falls within the statute’s proscriptions. If… Read more
State v. Kwesi B. Amonoo, 2011AP566, District 1, 1/24/12 court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Amonoo: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity Amonoo fails to show that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance with respect to pretrial identification procedure (context: “sufficient reason” to overcome serial litigation bar following direct appeal): ¶15 Amonoo contends that of… Read more
… Perry v. New Hampshire: The Federal Evidence Blog gauges the impact of last-week’s decision relegating “happenstance” but suggestive ID procedure to jury (rather than due process) determination. Pointing out that Perry highlights 5 “protections” against unreliable IDs, the post keys on appropriate jury instructions (and promises to “review some of these [other] key protections in upcoming posts”; might… Read more
Juan Smith v. Cain, USSC No. 10-8145, 1/10/12 Statements by the sole eyewitness, who identified Smith at trial as one of the perpetrators, that in fact he couldn’t see the faces of the perpetrators were “material” to determination of Smith’s guilt. Therefore, the state’s failure to disclose these statements before trial violated Smith’s due process… Read more
Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, 1/11/12, affirming State v. Perry (N.H. sup. ct. 11/18/10) For purposes of due process, a pretrial identification isn’t suppressible unless the product of improper law enforcement activity. We have not extended pretrial screening for reliability to cases in which the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement officers. Petitioner… Read more
