Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS


STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW——————-1
STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT——————————————3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE—————————————-4
ARGUMENT——————————————7

The Trial Court erroneously viewed the holdings in Loop v. State, 2d. 694, 696 (1974) denying the Defendant's Postconviction Motion on 3/27/08 reasoning that the Defendant could have raised the instant issues on Direct Appeal, when the Defendant did not pursue a Direct Appeal————————————————7

Trial Counsel was prejudicially deficient in the pre-trial stage failing to investigate Co-Defendant Derrick Howard whom would have provided information under the Legitimate Tendency Test, that a third person could have committed the crime absent the requirement to establish guilt of third persons to the degree of certainty as a requisite to sustain a conviction in order for this type of evidence to be admitted to a jury————8

The Trial Court erroneously viewed §.904.03 and §.904.04(2)Stats. allowing state witness Thomas Avery under the rules of hearsay to testify at trial that the Defendant had self-inflicted a gun-shot wound showcasing a propensity to use firearms nexus to the commission of the predicated offense of 8/19/96————13

Defense Counsel's unfamiliarity with §.805.13(5) Stats, endorsed the trial court's erroneous view of said statute in its failure to re-instruct the jury causing the jury to reach a verdict based on evidence not receive
at trial—————————————————-——————————15

Trial Counsel's erroneous view of a Goodchild Hearing deprived the Defendant of his right to take the stand in order to make a record of his version of the facts and circumstances under which the Defendant's statement was given——————————————16

The Trial record Ascertains that juror Gretchen L. Wahl, no. 276, possessed subjective bias sentiments in voir dire based on interracial incident transpiring in 1983, wherein her brother -in-law's sister was killed by a firearm in a drive by shooting, admitting on the record a biasness affecting her impartiality at trial————————18

An unnamed juror provided incompetent responses on voir dire to material questions alerting the trial court after two (2) days of trial that she knew State witnesses, lodius Barker and Susan Foster showcasing subjective bias towards the Defendant—19

The Prosecutor went beyond the providence of reasoning of the evidence informing the jury in its argument that the Defendants had admitted that he had operated the vehicle utilized in the commission of the offense on 8/19/96 in the a.m., where such statement is not a matter of record————————————————21

Trial Counsel failed to place a proper objection on the record allowing Thomas Avery to inform the jury of the Defendant's alleged involvement in an armed robbery with Thomas Avery as a victim, prior to the incident of 8/19/96, which should've been a matter of a Motion in Limine—————————————————22

Trial Counsel failed to move for a mistrial when the prosecutor pursued an uninterrupted line of questioning, exposing the Defendant to the jury that he was in pre-trial custody___________________________24

CONCLUSION——————————————————————————26



CASES CITED II
TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.

AFTER HOUR WELDING (1982)
108 WIS. 2D. 734, 324 N.W. 2D. 686—————————————21

ESTELLE V. WILLIAMS (1976)
425 U.S. 501, 96 S. Ct. 1691————————————————24-25

HARTUNG V. HARTUNG (1981)
102 WIS. 2D. 59, 306 N.W. 147———————-———————8

LACLAW V. STATE (1968)
41 WIS. 2D. 177, 163 N.W. 147———————————————17

LOOP V. STATE (1974)
69 WIS. 2D. 499, 222 N.W. 2D. 694—————————————1,7,8

MULKOUVICH V. STATE (1976)
73 WIS. 2D. 464, 243 N.W. 2D. 198———————————-——15

STATE V. CARTER (2002)
250 WIS. 2D. 851, 641 N.W. 2D. 517——————————-——18

STATE V. PENNY (1984)
120 WIS. 2D. 614, 357 N.W. 2D. 12—————————————-9

STATE V. EDELBURG (1986)
129 WIS. 2D. 394, 384, N.W. 2D. 724—————————————16

STATE V. FELTON (1983)
110 WIS. 2D. 485, 329 N.W. 2D. 161—————————————10-11

STATE V. HAYES (2004)
273 WIS. 2D. 1——————————————————————16,21

STATE V. HUTNIK (1968)
39 WIS. 2D. 754,159 N.W. 2D. 733———————————————13-14

STATE V. JACKSON (1997) 212 WIS. 2D. 203, 567 N.W. 2D. 920——————————————20

STATE V. JORGENSON (2008) 2008 WIS. 60)———————————————————————22
STATE V. MACHNER (1979)
92 WIS. 2D. 797——————————————————————11

STATE V. MESSELT (1994) 185 WIS. 2D. 254, 518 N.W. 2D. 232—————————————20


STATE V. NORWOOD (2005) 287 WIS. 2D. 679, 706 N.W. 2D. 683————————————15


STATE V. RICHARDSON (1969) 49 WIS. 2D. 75,170 N.W. 2D. 775——————21

CASES CITED STATE V. SPRAGGEN(1977)
77 WIS. 2D. 89, 252 N.W. 2D. 94————————————24

STATE V. SULLVIAN(1998)
216 WIS. 2D. 768. 576 N.W. 2D. 30——————————23

STATE V. THIELI2003)
264 WIS. 2D. 571, 665 N.W. 2D. 305——————————12

STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON(1984)
466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052——————————————12

STATE Ex. Rel. GOODCHILD V. BURKE (1965)
27 WIS. 2D. 244,133 N.W. 2D. 753———————————16-17

TERWILLIGER V. KOTKE (1983)
110 WIS. 2D. 86, 328 N.W. 2D 481———————————16


STATUES CITED §. 805.13, STATS.—————————————————————2,15

§. 809.30, STATS.——————————————————————2

§. 809.32, STATS.——————————————————————4

§. 901.03 (4) STATS.—————————————————————3

§. 904.03, STATS.——————————————————————4

§. 904.04, STATS.——————————————————————4

§. 939.05, STATS.-——————————————————————6

§. 940.01,STATS.——————————————————————7