Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2009AP2069-CR State v. Tankson

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 18, 2010//

2009AP2069-CR State v. Tankson

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 18, 2010//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Ineffective assistance; exculpatory evidence; new trials

Andre D. Tankson appeals from a judgment of conviction for kidnapping, aggravated battery, first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and one count of second-degree sexual assault by use of force, and of the July 20, 2009 order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Tankson argues that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to him, that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and that he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice. We disagree, and affirm the judgment and order of the circuit court. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP2069-CR State v. Tankson

Dist IV, Dane County, McNamara, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys: For Appellant: Sommers, Joseph L., Oregon; For Respondent: Moeller, Marguerite M., Madison; Stephan, Corey C., Madison

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests