Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Procedure — new trials — newly discovered evidence

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 25, 2014//

Criminal Procedure — new trials — newly discovered evidence

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 25, 2014//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — new trials — newly discovered evidence

Adrian Starks was convicted in 2008 of two counts of first-degree reckless homicide and one count of conspiracy to manufacture or deliver more than 50 grams of heroin. The charges stemmed from two heroin overdose deaths occurring in 2005. After his direct appeal process was complete, Starks, acting pro se, filed motions with the circuit court seeking a new trial. He now appeals the circuit court’s order denying that request. Starks argues that he should receive a new trial because (1) there is newly discovered evidence, (2) the real controversy was not fully tried, (3) the State committed a Brady violation, and (4) the combined effect of the asserted errors in his case prejudiced his defense. He argues, in the alternative, that the circuit court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing. All of Starks’ arguments are primarily based on new information about a police officer’s apparent misconduct which, according to Starks, undermines that officer’s pivotal testimony at Starks’ trial. We reject Starks’ arguments, and affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP93 State v. Starks

Dist IV, Dane County, Ehlke, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Starks, Adrian A., pro se; For Respondent: Ozanne, Ismael R., Madison; Johnson-Karp, Gabe, Madison

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