Right to Counsel
State v. Dagnall, 98-2746-CR, 228 Wis. 2d 495 (Ct. App. (1999)
	THE STATE DENIED THE DEFENDANT HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DETECTIVES QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT AFTER HE WAS CHARGED WITH THE HOMICIDE OF NORMAN GROSS AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME HE ENGAGED COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief       Court of Appeals Decision       State of Wisconsin - Supreme Court
State v. Hornung, 99-0300-CR, 229 Wis.2d 469 (Ct. App. 1999)
	HORNUNG'S STATEMENTS, AND ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS A FRUIT OF HIS STATEMENTS, INCLUDING THE CONSENT TO SEARCH HIS STORAGE LOCKER, MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES VIOLATED HORNUNG'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, § 7 OF THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Semrau,98-3443-CR, 99-3452-CR
I.	THE POLICE VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THEY ARRANGED TO TAPE RECORD THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS TO A POLICE INFORMANT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Stephany, 97-2139-CR
II.	THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ORDERED MR. STEPHANY'S STATEMENTS SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE POLICE CHIEF FAILED TO CEASE THE INTERROGATION WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO THE CHIEF'S REQUEST THAT HE TAKE A POLYGRAPH, MR. STEPHANY SAID HE WANTED TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Williams, 99-2575-CR
	THE STATE VIOLATED MR. WILLIAMS' SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN IT INITIATED INTERROGATION ABOUT VMO AFTER CHARGES WERE FILED PERTAINING TO VMO AND MR. WILLIAMS REQUESTED COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. George S. Tulley, 00-3085-CR
I.	THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND HIS RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE CONDUCTED SECRET UNRECORDED INTERVIEWS WITH THREE PROSPECTIVE JURORS AND STRUCK THEM FOR CAUSE WITHOUT PROVIDING THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THESE JURORS CONCERNING THEIR ABILITY TO SERVE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Trevor D. Jones, 00-2281-CR
I.	THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WITHOUT: (A) EVER STATING HE DID NOT WANT A LAWYER; (B) UNDERTAKING ANY ACT INDICATING A DESIRE TO PROCEED WITHOUT COUNSEL; AND (C) ANY ON-THE-RECORD COLLOQUY BY THE TRIAL COURT ASCERTAINING THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD MADE A KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY DECISION TO DISPENSE WITH COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Brian J. Lovelien, 01-0603-CR
II.	THE REQUEST BY the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SIX MONTHS AFTER MR. LOVELIEN WAS SENTENCED, THAT HE STIPULATE TO THE $173,857.66 THAT IT DETERMINED HE SHOULD PAY IN RESTITUTION INFRINGED MR. LOVELIEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Ineffective Assistance
State v. Erickson, 98-0273-CR, 227 Wis. 2d 758 (1999)
II.	IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT WHEN MR. ERICKSON WAS NOT GIVEN THE FULL NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES MANDATED BY STATUTE WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Court of Appeals Brief      Supreme Court Brief      Go To Decision
State v. Anderson, 97-3070-CR
	THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL PROCEEDED WITH THE SENTENCING HEARING EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NOT READ TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENTENCE, HAD NOT PROVIDED THE DEFENDANT WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE PRESENTENCE AND WAS UNPREPARED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS SENTENCING THEORY OF DEFENSE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Arebalo, 99-2120-CR
I.	IT WAS UNREASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENSES OF VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION AND MISTAKE FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL TO FAIL TO FULLY INVESTIGATE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENSES, WHEN A PROPER INVESTIGATION WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED A HOSPITAL BLOOD TEST REFLECTING THAT AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO TAKE TWO PIZZAS BY FORCE HE HAD A NEAR TOXIC BAC LEVEL OF .27 AND THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO OFFERED TO WALK THE DEFENDANT HOME BECAUSE OF DRUNKENNESS SHORTLY BEFORE THE OFFENSE.
II.	THE REAL CONTROVERSY WAS NOT FULLY TRIED AND MR. AREBALO IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Boness, 98-1059-CR
	IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT WHEN MR. BONESS WAS NOT GIVEN THE FULL NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES MANDATED BY STATUTE WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Brock, 99-1725-CR
	TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY FAILING TO FILE A SUPPRESSION MOTION.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Byrge, 97-3217-CR, 225 Wis.2d 702 (Ct. App. 1999)
I.	JERAMEY BYRGE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO ENTER NO CONTEST PLEAS NOR TO WITHDRAW HIS NGI PLEAS AT THE TIME OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS.
II.	JERAMEY BYRGE DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Court of Appeals Brief      Supreme Court Brief      Go To Decision
State v. Cleveland, 99-2682-CR
I.	MR. CLEVELAND WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS ATTORNEY FAILED TO STIPULATE THAT THE 37 PHOTOGRAPHS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 11 WERE HARMFUL TO CHILDREN, AS A MEANS OF PREVENTING THE JURY FROM VIEWING THE EXHIBIT.
II.	THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE INFLAMMATORY PHOTOGRAPHS ON EXHIBIT 11 PREVENTED THE REAL CONTROVERY FROM BEING FULLY AND FAIRLY TRIED.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Charles Dunlap a/k/a Char Lee Dancing Eagle, 99-2189-CR
II.	IF THE STATE DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CHILD'S UNUSUAL BEHAVIORS SUGGESTIVE OF PRIOR SEXUAL KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE WAS NOT OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE, TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SECURE AN EXPERT TO LINK UP THE OBSERVED BEHAVIORS OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS AND POSSIBLE PRIOR SEXUAL KNOWLEDGE AND TO HAVE PRESENTED INFORMATION ON THOSE BEHAV-IORS THROUGH AVAILABLE WITNESSES AT A REQUIRED PRE-TRIAL HEARING.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. DuPree, 99-2168-CR
I.	TRIAL COUNSEL'S TREMENDOUSLY PREJUDICIAL FAILURE TO PRESENT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT WILLIAM SID DUPREE HAD BEEN SEARCHED WITH NO CRACK PIPES BEING FOUND BEFORE BEING PLACED IN A SQUAD CAR WHERE CRACK PIPES WERE LATER FOUND WHERE POSSESSION OF THOSE PIPES WAS THE CENTRAL FACT ISSUE IN THE CASE AND TO INVESTIGATE TO CORROBORATE HIS CLAIM HE USED CHOREBOY FOR CLEANING DEPRIVED MR. DUPREE OF A FAIR TRIAL.
II.	THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AS THE REAL ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY TRIED.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Engevold, 98-0279-CR
II.	THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT WHEN MR. ENGEVOLD WAS NOT GIVEN THE FULL NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES MANDATED BY STATUTE WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Engles, 99-2011-CR
I.	MR. ENGLES WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL VICTIM-IMPACT TESTIMONY.
II.	A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE ORDRED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE REAL CONTROVERSY WAS NOT FULLY TRIED.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Harris, 99-2590-CR
II.	TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PREJUDICIAL AND IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL DEPRIVED MR. HARRIS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
III.	MR. HARRIS SHOULD BE GIVEN A NEW TRIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE ADMISSION OF IRRELEVANT AND PRE-JUDICIAL EVIDENCE RESULTED IN THE REAL CONTROVERSY NOT BEING FULLY TRIED.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Head, 98-0280-CR
II.	IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT WHEN MR. HEAD WAS NOT GIVEN THE FULL NUMBER OF PEREMPTROY CHALLENGES REQUIRED BY STATUTE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Hines, 98-0207-CR
I.	TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO IMPEACH LATOYA SMITH'S IDENTIFICATION OF MR. HINES DENIED HIM THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Kaminski, 98-1301-CR
III.	DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY HIS TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO IMPROPER PROSECUTORIAL ARGUMENTS IN SUMMATION.
IV.	DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY HIS TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO DUPLICITOUS JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT FORMS.
V.	THE INTEGRITY OF THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS WAS UNDERMINED BY THE AGGREGATION OF ANOMALOUS ISSUES AT TRIAL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Martin, Jr., 99-1932-CR
II.	MR. MARTIN WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO INSURE THAT HE HAD THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES MANDATED BY STATUTE AT TRIAL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. May, 99-1647-CR
II.	UNDER STATE V. DEKEYSER, TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO HAVE PREVENTED THE ADMISSION OF THE EXTREMELY PREJUDICIAL OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE.
IV.	TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO NON-STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION ON SEXUAL ASSAULT WHICH ALTERNATIVELY ALLOWED THE JURY TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY AS TO ALL THREE CHARGED SECOND-DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES BY FINDING GUILT AS TO ONE OR MORE COMPLAINING WITNESSES AS TO EACH ELEMENT.
V.	A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AS THE REAL ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY TRIED.
	Go To Decision
State v. Perkins, III, 99-1924-CR
II.	DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED AT TRIAL BY HIS COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO STIPULATE THE FACT OF DEFENDANT'S PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Rahlf, 98-3268-CR, 98-3269-CR
	DEFENDANT'S STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WAS VIOLATED BY HIS TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO ASSERT DEFENDANT'S FULL STATUTORY COMPLEMENT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Rickey, 98-0768-CR
	MR. RICKEY WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, ENTITLING HIM TO A NEW TRIAL, WHEN AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, COUNSEL FAILED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM'S EXCULPATORY PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION TESTIMONY.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Sappington, 99-2969-CR
III.	MR. SAPPINGTON'S COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE HIS CLAIM OF A SLEEP DISORDER DENIED HIM THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT BOTH PLEA AND SENTENCING STAGES.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Schilling, 98-0626-CR
I.	THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Strong, 98-0248-CR
III.	DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO RAISE AVAILABLE CHALLENGES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DILEMA OF DEFENDANT HAVING TO GIVE UP HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE CHARGED CASE TO PRESERVE IT IN THE CASE THE STATE THREATENED TO CHARGE BASED ON THE 1983 INCIDENT.
	Court of Appeals Brief              Supreme Court Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Tanksley, 98-3317-CR
IV.	MR. TANKSLEY WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO REQUEST A CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION TO ASSIST THE JURY IN DECIDING HOW IT COULD CONSIDER THE WHITTY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Trawitzki, 99-2234-CR
II.	TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO IMPEACH THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES BY ELICITING THE NUMBER OF THEIR PRIOR CONVICTIONS DEPRIVED MR. TRAWITZKI OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Veach, 98-2387-CR
II.	MR. VEACH WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOW THAT HE COULD EXCLUDE THE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE BY HAVING MR. VEACH STIPULATE TO CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGES.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Williams, 99-812-CR
V.	WILLIAMS' LAWYER FAILED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO THE JURY SELECTION.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Zastrow, 99-1074-CR
I.	TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN REGARD TO THE "OTHER ACTS" EVIDENCE.
II.	TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY FAILING TO OBJECT, OR MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL, IN LIGHT OF TESTIMONY BY THE STATE'S TWO EXPERT WITNESSES THAT THEY BELIEVED THE CHILDREN IN THIS CASE WERE TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY THE DEFENDANT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Watkins, 00-0064-CR
	TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR WHOLLY FAILING TO INVESTIGATE MALONE'S BACKGROUND AND FOR FAILING TO APPRISE THE COURT AT TRIAL OR AT SENTENCING OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH SUPPORTED WATKINS' DEFENSE, AND WHICH MITIGATED WATKINS' SENTENCE
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State Of Wisconsin v. Eugene Thomas II, 99-2845-CR
I.	MR. THOMAS WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND HIS STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MELINDA ROWAN, DEFENSE COUNSEL ELICITED A DAMAGING HEARSAY STATEMENT THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY RULED INADMISSIBLE.
II.	MR. THOMAS WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO RAISE A HEARSAY OBJECTION AND MOVE TO STRIKE WHEN MELINDA ROWAN TESTIFIED THAT HER MOTHER PREVIOUSLY TOLD HER NOT TO LET MR. THOMAS INTO HER APARTMENT.
III.	MR. THOMAS WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE DONALD SORENSEN, TRIAL COUNSEL ELICITED TESTIMONY INDICATING THAT AFTER BEING ADVISED OF HIS RIGHTS MR. THOMAS INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
IV.	MR. THOMAS WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS A CONSEQUENCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO DISPLAY OR SUBMIT TO THE JURY PHOTOGRAPHS OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF MR. THOMAS' DEFENSE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State Of Wisconsin v. Eugene Thomas II, 99-2845-CR
I.	MR. THOMAS WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND HIS STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MELINDA ROWAN, DEFENSE COUNSEL ELICITED A DAMAGING HEARSAY STATEMENT THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY RULED INADMISSIBLE.
II.	MR. THOMAS WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO RAISE A HEARSAY OBJECTION AND MOVE TO STRIKE WHEN MELINDA ROWAN TESTIFIED THAT HER MOTHER PREVIOUSLY TOLD HER NOT TO LET MR. THOMAS INTO HER APARTMENT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State Of Wisconsin v. Jeffrey L. Jude, 99-3021-CR
	TRIAL COUNSEL INEFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT BY ADVISING HIM TO STIPULATE TO AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE WITHOUT FULLY INVESTIGATING THE FACTS SURROUNDING THAT ELEMENT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Jason J. Trawitzki, 99-2234-CR, __ Wis.2d __ ( )
II.	TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO IMPEACH THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES BY ELICITING THE NUMBER OF THEIR PRIOR CONVICTIONS DEPRIVED MR. TRAWITZKI OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. George S. Tulley, 00-3085-CR
II.	THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO A UNANIMOUS JURY AND THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE UNANIMITY INSTRUCTION AND VERDICT FORMS GIVEN THE JURY PRIOR TO DELIBERATIONS.
II.	TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S SONS' CONVICTIONS AND CONFESSIONS AND THEN FAILING TO UTILIZE THIS INFORMATION IN ANY WAY TO FURTHER HIS CLAIMED THEORY OF DEFENSE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Darnell Hines, 98-0207-CR
I.	TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO IMPEACH LATOYA SMITH'S IDENTIFICATION OF MR. HINES DENIED HIM THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
II.	THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROHIBITING MR. HINES FROM CROSS-EXAMINING THE EYE-WITNESS TO DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE AT THE MACHNER HEARING.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Mathew M. Engevold, 98-0279-CR
II.	THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT WHEN MR. ENGEVOLD WAS NOT GIVEN THE FULL NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES MANDATED BY STATUTE WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Glenn, 00-0917-CR
II.	MR. GLENN WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ELICITED TESTIMONY INDICATING KAELA KVALO SAID SHE WAS SCARED AS SHE PASSED NEAR MR. GLENN IN THE COURTROOM, BUT KAELA DID NOT RESPOND TO QUESTIONING BY DEFENSE COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Melvin S. Lewis, 00-0710-CR
I.	THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL AND THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN THE STATE, WITHOUT OBJECTION, PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF GUNS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OF A HOME ALLEGED TO BE UNDER THE DEFENDANT'S CONTROL.
II.	THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL AND THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO REQUEST A LIMITING INSTRUCTION AS TO HOW THE JURY SHOULD CONSIDER THE GUN EVIDENCE.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Charles A. Pollard III. 99-2949-CR
I.	MR. POLLARD WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IMPEDED THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.
II.	A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE ERROR IN THE BRIDGING INSTRUCTION PREVENTED A FULL AND FAIR TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF MR. POLLARD'S GUILT OF FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Steinle, 00-0463-CR
II.	IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CONSULT A MEDICAL EXPERT WHEN HE STATED NO TACTICAL REASON EXISTED FOR DOING SO.
III.	THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN PERMITTING SPECIAL AGENT MAGOLAN, OVER OBJECTION, TO TESTIFY HE BELIEVED LEON R. STEINLE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON REGARDING THE DRUG TRANSACTION IN WHICH HIS GIRLFRIEND WAS INVOLVED.
IV.	THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Aaron t. Hicks, 01-0055-CR
II.	THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED MR. HICKS' MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF BASED ON HIS COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE A POSSIBLE DEFENSE AND TO DETERMINE HIS PENALTY EXPOSURE UNDER A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Delgado, 00-1403-CR
III.	IF THIS COURT FINDS WAIVER, DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, AND COMPOUNDED THE PROBLEM BY ARGUABLY IMPROPER ARGUMENT WHICH RESULTED IN A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION AIMED AT HIM.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Waiver
State v. Muschinske, 99-0180-CR
	THE WAIVER OF COUNSEL MADE BY THE DEFENDANT PRIOR TO HIS GUILTY PLEAS WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY INADEQUATE, AND THEREFORE HIS FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WAS VIOLATED BY HIS LACK OF COUNSEL AT THE PLEA AND SENTENCING HEARING.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Pollard, III, 99-1487-CR
I.	MR. POLLARD WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT IMPEDED THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.
II.	A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE ERROR IN THE BRIDGING INSTRUCTION PREVENTED A FULL AND FAIR TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF MR. POLLARD'S GUILT OF FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
State v. Rabe, 99-0451-CR
	SUCCESSOR COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO LITIGATE PRETRIAL MOTIONS CHALLENGING THE WARRANTLESS ARREST INSIDE MR. RABE'S RESIDENCE, AND TO REQUEST AN INSTRUCTION ON THE RESISTING CHARGE DIRECTING THE JURY TO ASSESS THE LEGALITY OF THE OFFICERS' CONDUCT, DEPRIVED MR. RABE OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Conflict
State v. Evers, 98-1287-CR
III.	DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS TRIAL LAWYER HAD AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN REPRESENTING BOTH HIM AND A CODEFENDANT IN A JOINT TRIAL.
	Go To Brief              Go To Decision
Other
(No Entries)