US Supreme Court decision Habeas – Discovery Hall entitled to discovery and evidentiary hearing as to what prompted jury members to give “the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts.” From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be… Read more
22. Habeas corpus
7th Circuit decision, denying relief in: Wis COA No. 2003AP1885 Habeas – Effective Assistance of Counsel – Lesser Included Instruction Given state court conclusion that Lopez was not entitled to lesser offense instruction on felony-murder, counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to request the instruction. Nor was the absence of the instruction “a fundamental miscarriage of… Read more
7th Circuit decision; granting habeas relief in: Wis App Nos. 2002AP791 and 2006AP2708 (earlier decision, 1/21/10, now amended); appeal following remand, 11-3228 Habeas – Confrontation “Because it was error for the state court to admit the co-actors’ statements through the police detective’s testimony at trial, violating Ray’s right of confrontation, we reverse and remand.” A somewhat recurrent problem. The… Read more
US Supreme Court decision Habeas – Effective Assistance of Counsel The state court finding that counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue mitigation of sentence on a theory of mental limitations was “not unreasonable,” and thus not subject to reversal. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 contains two provisions governing federal-court… Read more
Johnbull K. Osagiede v. USA, 7th Cir No. 07-1131, 9/9/08 Issue/Holding: Counsel’s ignorance of VCCR Art. 36 rights available to foreign national client was deficient: Osagiede’s claim is a common one in Sixth Amendment cases. In essence, Osagiede argues that his lawyer should have been aware of his legal rights under Article 36 and should have… Read more
Donald Calloway v. Montgomery, 512 F. 3d 940, No. 07-1148, 1/14/08 Issue/Holding: Where the Supreme Court has expressly declined to rule on the issue (or on one in a very similar) context) to the issue on habeas review, there is no clearly established precedent within the meaning of AEDPA. Andrew Lockhart v. Chandler, 446 F.3d 721… Read more
State ex rel. Jarrad T. Panama v. Hepp, 2008 WI App 146 For Panama: Philip J. Brehm Issue/Holding: Panama’s collateral attack on a sentence previously affirmed by no-merit appeal may be canalized into a “Knight” habeas petition, at least where the challenge is based on a potential defect apparent in the record. The court continues… Read more
Allen A. Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir 2005) Issue/Holding: AEDPA requirement of state court adjudication on merits requires neither “well-articulated or even correct decision”; state court need not offer any reasons, so that summary disposition would satisfy requirement. In short: it “is perhaps best understood by stating what it is not: it is not the… Read more
