Issues (composed by On Point)
1. Whether the non-waivable nature of the defendant’s right to personal presence at voir dire, citing, § 971.04(1)(c); State v. Harris, 229 Wis. 2d 832, 839, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999), extends to examination of a juror for possible dismissal following selection and swearing-in.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed two jurors, notwithstanding their declarations of impartiality, in that one expressed concerned about “revenge” by a someone the juror thought connected to the case, and the other knew an important witness for the defense.
3. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by giving the State notes of an investigator’s interview with the primary alibi witness and by asking that witness whether his testimony was consistent with what he had told the investigator (thus exposing the witness to impeachment by the State).
4. Whether Alexander’s request for relief on the ground of newly discovered evidence, namely an affidavit which purported to give an eyewitness account of a shooting committed by someone other than Alexander, provided sufficient detail to support a conclusion that this was in fact the offense Alexander for which was convicted.
Usual caveat applies: the petition isn’t publicly available, so the issues-statement assumes that all the issues raised in the court of appeal have been renewed, in roughly the same form. Confirmation may be had by checking the briefs, at the “case activity” link, when they’re filed in the supreme court.