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 he lied to the police….,” ¶33.
Nor was counsel ineffective for failure to: secure testimony of witnesses as impeachment of other-crimes evidence, given lack of showing that their testimony “would have directly impeached” the other-crimes complainant’s version, ¶48; or cross-examine a witness on the consideration he received in a pending prosecution for testifying against Arredondo, given the witness’s admission to the consideration during direct examination, ¶¶37-38.