Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance — confidential informants — in camera review

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — ineffective assistance — confidential informants — in camera review

Kendrick Lee appeals a judgment of conviction entered on a jury’s verdict of one count of keeping a drug house and one count of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, and an order denying his postconviction motions. Lee contends that he is entitled to a new trial because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. He also contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for an in camera review because he met his initial burden to show that there is a possibility that the confidential informant could supply testimony necessary to a fair determination of Lee’s guilt or innocence in this case, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 905.10(3)(b) (2011-12).[1] For the reasons we explain below, we affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP2126-CR State v. Lee

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Cimpl, J., Higginbotham, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Kaiser, Richard L., South Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Noet, Nancy A., Madison