Free Newsletter
09-868 Wall v. Kholi
Habeas Corpus AEDPA A motion to reduce a sentence under state law is an application for “collateral review” that triggers AEDPA’s tolling provision. The parties agree that the motion is not part of the direct review process, and both this Court and lower federal courts have described a motion to reduce sentence under old Federal […]
02-C-1123 Toliver v. McCaughtry
Habeas Corpus Ineffective assistance of counsel Where a defendant’s attorney had no strategic reason for not interviewing potential witnesses, his representation was deficient. “In this case, a review of the record shows that the petitioner’s trial counsel told the petitioner that he was not going to call Angeal Toliver to testify because ‘they wouldn’t believe […]
2010AP719 State ex rel. Shelton v. Smith
Habeas Corpus Sentence credit Christopher L. Shelton appeals from an order of the circuit court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Shelton was convicted of two crimes and given consecutive sentences. Shelton argues that because he was unlawfully detained for 143 days after the mandatory release date of his first sentence, he […]
2010AP719 State ex rel. Shelton v. Smith
Habeas Corpus Sentence credit Christopher L. Shelton appeals from an order of the circuit court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Shelton was convicted of two crimes and given consecutive sentences. Shelton argues that because he was unlawfully detained for 143 days after the mandatory release date of his first sentence, he […]
09-587 Harrington v. Richter
Habeas Corpus Standard of review 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) applies to a habeas corpus petition, even though the state court’s order was unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the court’s reasoning. By its terms, §2254(d) bars relitigation of a claim “adjudicated on the merits” in state court unless, among other exceptions, the earlier state-court “decision” involved &#[...]
09-658 Premo v. Moore
Habeas Corpus Ineffective assistance of counsel Under 28 U. S. C. 2254(d), federal habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state court has adjudicated on the merits unless, among other exceptions, the state-court decision denying relief involves “an unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by” this Court. […]
State must respond to petition
The State needs to respond promptly to habeas corpus petitions in federal court if it wants make substantive arguments defending the state court convictions.
09-3946 Suh v. Pierce
Habeas Corpus Judicial bias Where the trial judge in a murder trial was not aware that he was acquaintances with family members of the victim, judicial recusal was not required. “Recusal also may be required outside of these specific instances if the probability of actual bias is high enough. See Caperton, 129 S. Ct. at […]
10-C-553 Fischer v. Van Hollen
Habeas Corpus Waiver If the state does not respond to a habeas corpus petition in federal court, it waives its opportunity to make specific arguments to the petition. “While the court rejects the suggestion that the expert’s testimony was relevant only to the charge of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, the foregoing observation emphasizes […]
09-1666 Cross v. Hardy
Habeas Corpus Confrontation Clause Where the state failed to subpoena the complainant in a sexual assault trial, instead reading her testimony from the first trial into the record, the defendant’s right to confront the witness was violated. “We do not lightly reach our conclusion that the state court unreasonably applied federal law, but under the […]
09-2292 Promotor v. Pollard
Habeas Corpus Waiver Wisconsin courts regularly apply the procedural default rule, that a party who fails to object at the trial court waives the right to appeal unless justice so requires. “As a general rule, Wisconsin courts find waiver if information is not objected to at the trial court. And this was true in 2003 […]
09-2947 Martin v. Bartow
Habeas Corpus Sexually violent persons Prisoners committed under Wisconsin’s sexually violent persons law can bring challenges in federal court to their annual recommitment orders. “Martin’s constitutional right to due process limits his civil commitment to the period during which he is ‘both mentally ill and dangerous, but no longer.’ Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71[...]
Polls
Loading ...Legal News
- Wisconsin attorney loses law license, ordered to pay $16K fine
- Former Wisconsin police officer charged with 5 bestiality felony counts
- Judge reject’s Trump’s bid for a new trial in $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll defamation case
- Dozens of deaths reveal risks of injecting sedatives into people restrained by police
- The Latest: Supreme Court arguments conclude in Trump immunity case
- Net neutrality restored as FCC votes to regulate internet providers
- Wisconsin Attorney General asks Congress to expand reproductive health services
- Attorney General Kaul releases update at three-year anniversary of clergy and faith leader abuse initiative
- State Bar leaders remain deeply divided over special purpose trust
- Former Wisconsin college chancellor fired over porn career is fighting to keep his faculty post
- Pecker says he pledged to be Trump campaign’s ‘eyes and ears’ during 2016 race
- A conservative quest to limit diversity programs gains momentum in states
WLJ People
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Russell Nicolet
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Benjamin Nicolet
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Dustin T. Woehl
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Katherine Metzger
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Joseph Ryan
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – James M. Ryan
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Dana Wachs
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Mark L. Thomsen
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Matthew Lein
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Jeffrey A. Pitman
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – William Pemberton
- Power 30 Personal Injury Attorneys – Howard S. Sicula
