Sexual "Assault" ain't always what it seems

One of the really frustrating things about Wisconsin's (and most other state's) sexual assault laws is that they are very often blind to reality. The reality I speak of is that kids - teenagers - are sexually curious and, increasingly, sexually active. In the past year, however, I have represented 5 individuals - 18 year olds - who either had sex with or were discovered in mid-grope with girls in the 14-16 year range. In each instance, the girls were more than on board - they were active, interested participants and, in 2 cases, the aggressors. The boys (men?), however, were hauled off to jail and faced between 25 and 40 years in prison for their dalliance.

One kid (let's face it, 18 year old's are still "kids") actually pled guilty to felony sexual assault and served 9 months because he touched (brushed up against) a girl's breast. After I convinced the judge to reverse the conviction, a jury (luckily!) saw right through the charge of "assault" and acquitted him.

So the system works, right? Sure, after 2 anguishing years, public humiliation, financial ruin and the risk of being labeled a sexual predator.

Another case in point: an 18 year senior is pursued by a 15 year old party girl who trumpets on her "My Space" page about all the drinking and fooling around she does. They finally have sex after she aggressively pushes the issue. Later, in school, she is heard bragging about it by a teacher (who is a mandatory reporter). The next thing this kid knows, a detective is calling about potential charges of sexual assault of a child. Is this just or right? Of course not! It is more of the same sexual hysteria that has infected the system and our society run amok!

That's my rant for today! With all of the unsolved robberies, murders and REAL rapes, don't the police have higher priorities? There is such a thing as judgment and discretion in law enforcement....let's use some folks!

---

John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214
Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com

---

Proving a crime is a real "burden"!

Two cases currently being given an inordinate amount of hysterical media attention demonstrate how the public can have a twisted view of justice in America. More importantly, they are left with the impression that the cops always get it right and ignore the vast number of wrongfully convicted people in this country.

OJ is at it again! Or is he? Was he set up? Even some commentators think so as discussed on CNN InSession BLOGs. The hysterical reaction to OJ over the years is explicitly played out here. After his arrest for trying to get his own property back, who were the first to be interviewed? The Goldman's!! How's that for getting a fair shake? The actual evidence - available for those who care to look - shows a judge who let in tapes secretly recorded that even the FBI expert admitted could have been altered, the witness who did the taping selling them to a gossip website (TMZ) BEFORE he gave them to the police and then writing a book well before the trial and the arresting cop admitting that he normally arrests people before making a complete investigation! There is little doubt that OJ was trying to get his stuff back himself (without the police) to avoid any proceeds from going to pay the $33 million dollar judgment against him, but that does not mean he knew that a gun was brought to the party. His rat/snitch friends know that but will say anything after the frantic rush to cut deals with the government.

On the other side of the country, a young woman is being crucified daily in the press. Casey Anthony reported her daughter Caylee missing in July - a month after she went missing. Since then, she has been vilified as "unstable," "perplexed" and that she had long ago tried to give Caylee up for adoption. The authorities then claim to have found Caylee's hair, an "odor" and "stains" (which can only be seen with a black light) in the trunk of Casey's car. There is reportedly evidence of a "decomposing body" and traces of choloform. Never, however, have any of these supposed scientific tests been confirmed. I have seen countless instances where DNA and fingerprint "evidence" has been debunked because of faulty sample collection, messy lab work or flat-out corrupt technicians. But the media plays it like undoubted fact and then engages in salacious smears to paint this woman in the most evil light possible. Enough already!!! Can't the media allow the process to work without poisoning the jury pool before someone has a chance to defend themselves. The paper thin case they are trying to build reminds one of the Manhattan Beach sex abuse case (day care worker acquitted of molesting hundred's of preschool children) or the Duke LaCrosse case (where the DA was ultimately disbarred for abusing his position by manipulating the stripper "victims" of a claimed sexual assault).

Trying someone in the press is not what this country, or a criminal justice system are about. It turns into entertainment for those that can't get enough of Britney, Paris and Lindsay. If anyone has any doubt about the need for an experience and aggressive defense lawyer, these cases ar explicit examples of that need.

---

John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com

---

POST-CONVICTION RELIEF: PROCEDURAL BARS TO COLLATERAL ATTACKS

If you have recently been convicted of a crime and want to appeal your conviction, you must raise all significant legal issues in your first postconviction motion. If you do not, the chances are you will be procedurally barred from raising new issues in subsequent postconviction motions.

Two very important legal principles work against you here – finality and waiver. Generally speaking, “finality” means that if you raised an issue in a previous motion and lost, you cannot raise it again. See Beamon v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 215, 286 N.W.2d 592 (1980). “Waiver” means that if you failed to raise a particular issue in a previous motion, you cannot raise it later.

It is incredibly difficult to raise a new issue in a later postconviction motion. To do this, you must show the court a “sufficient reason” for raising it now. See State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis.2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994); State v. Lo, 2003 WI 707, 264 Wis.2d 1, 665 N.W.2d 756. This is not an easy task. There are very few circumstances in which a court has found “sufficient reasons.” Those include:

§ The appellate attorney did not claim ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, because the appellate attorney was also the attorney at trial. See State v. Hensley, 221 Wis.2d 473, 585 N.W.2d 683 (Ct. App. 1998).

§ The appellate attorney was ineffective in failing to bring a postconviction motion on direct appeal. See State ex rel. Rothering v. McCaughtry, 205 Wis.2d 675, 680, 556 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Ct. App. 1996).

§ The substantive law has changed, and it could not have been foreseen at the time of your direct appeal. See State v. Howard, 211 IWis. 2d, 269 564 N.W.2d 753 (1997).

The doctrine of finality and the waiver rule generally mean that you get only one chance to make your arguments. That is why it is so very important that you or your attorney raise all important issues in your initial postconviction motion.

---

Sydne French, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com

---

The Tragedy of Overzealous Prosecutors

Recently on this blog, my associate, TJ Perlick-Molinari, discussed a gang shooting case he won by talking about "The Tragedy of Gang Violence." It was, as he pointed out, a nasty and unnecessary shooting. What he failed to mention (or brag about!) is how important a vigorous defense attorney is in the process of criminal justice. Here, the state charged a shooting as a "party to a crime" which includes aiding and abetting, facilitating, conspiracy, etc., to commit the crime. However, the prosecutor alleged, through their victim, that our client did it directly.

The victim was just a rival gang member who was out to enhance his position and reduce his own prison time. It was a ridiculous case that never should have been brought and the jury saw right through it. If it hadn't been for TJ's aggressive defense, this client would be at Dodge Correctional Institution right now. The defense matters - though this is largely unseen and unrecognized by the public. TJ's post was far too modest - he was a hero that day for the cause of acting as a fundamental check on governmental power that ran amuk. Kudos to him and all like him that call out prosecutors and police without just rolling over and pleading clients out.

---

John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com

---

The Tragedy of Gang Violence

Today, I was reminded once again that crime does not pay. A young Spanish Cobra was on trial for allegedly shooting a Latin Kings member. I represented the young Spanish Cobra. This case, like so many, revolved around the issue of whether or not the jury believed the testimony of the Latin King gangster. This victim of gang warfare and violence had in fact been shot. There was no doubt about that. The bullet was still in his body. The real question was, who did it.

At the hospital after surgery, the Latin King made no affirmative identification of his shooter. He told the jury he was planning on taking care of this in the streets, and not cooperating with the police investigation. Turns out, he was already cooperating with the federal government regarding the indictment of his fellow Latin Kings. Part of that cooperation included being offered a proffer letter. This letter allowed him to make statements that could not be used against him unless they turned out to be false. In exchange for these statements, the government would give him consideration at sentencing.

In all gang investigations, the three things that investigators are most keen about are armed robberies, homicides, and shootings. It just so happens that this was a shooting case, albeit the shooting case of the victim in this case.

The victim decided to testify in this case and confront his alleged aggressor. During cross examination, he made statements that seeing Spanish Cobras die or go to prison would make him, “very happy.” He talked of his disdain for rival gang members and how he had been involved with his gang for many years, constantly fighting with other gangs to establish territory.

The result of that lifestyle was an indictment by the federal government. Trying to spare himself some time in prison he decided to cooperate. It just so happens that only after he had been under the proffer letter I talked about earlier did he pick his own shooter out of a lineup.

He insisted he knew the guy and that he lived at a certain address on the south side, and further that he would be able to identify him. All of this is well and good, but it was quite obvious to everyone on the jury that of course this victim is going to know members of his rival gang. He did not dislike my client starting the day he got shot. He had his hatred for this man for quite some time.

Ultimately, his credibility was torn to pieces during cross examination. Because the state did not have any other witnesses or direct evidence, the jury felt that while they did not care for my client, they really did not care for the victim or find him to have one ounce of credibility.

The victim in this case nearly lost his life. But that was a gamble he made years ago when he decided to live a life of deceit and violence as a member of a dangerous street gang. As for my client, not guilty was the verdict.

---

Attorney Theodore J. "TJ" Perlick-Molinari
Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465
www.birdsall-law.com

---

State of Wisconsin charged:
Count 1: 940.23(1)(a) - 1st Degree Reckless Injury - Felony D
Found Not Guilty at Jury Trial

Count 2 - 941.29(2)(a) - Felon Possess Firearm - Felony G
Found Not Guilty at Jury Trial

Murder & Sexual Assault Plea Bargains Aren't A Bargain

Every day I encounter people who believe that they were bullied into pleading guilty to some plea “bargain” that, upon brief reflection, they realized that it wasn’t that great of a deal. Or, more often, they just felt that they were truly innocent and should have gone to trial. In any event, they routinely blame their attorney for just being in bed with the DA and not really fighting for them and they want to “withdraw” their plea. Sounds simple, right? As usual, the answer is: “it depends.” The variables are huge, the DA’s almost universially oppose these motions no matter when brought but the judge can be a real wild card. I have had extremely compelling cases that have been denied and seemingly difficult cases that breezed right through.

The first hurdle is whether it is before or after sentencing. A criminal conviction begins after the judge “accepts” your plea of guilty and then “adjudges” you guilty and orders a “judgement of conviction” be entered in the record. The case is then set for sentence if it is a felony. Many smaller cases may proceed right to sentencing after the plea proceedings. The legal standard is hugely different: before sentencing, courts are supposed to “liberally” grant such motions for any “fair and just reason.” However, after sentencing, they only grant a withdrawal request to prevent a “manifest injustice.”

Don’t feel bad if you don’t know what those terms mean in the legal context, neither do most judges. We attorneys, of course are convinced that we always have met the standard but the judges are all over the board. Consider two case I have handled in recent years: Jose and Walter.
Jose was set for trial for 3 counts of first degree intentional homicide and 3 counts of reckless homicide. His trial attorney basically did nothing to investigate the case which involved a gang-related shooting. Early on, the state indicated that the only plea they would offer was to cop to 2 counts of first degree and they would recommend life without parole (no death penalty in Wisconsin - yet!). Jose rejected this “deal” categorically and maintained that position to anyone that would listen - including his Jesuit priest that would minister to him regularly. On the eve of trial, his attorney pushed a final “deal” on him: plead to just one count of first degree and 2 count of reckless homicide and the state still recommend life without parole. Can you feel the love? Some how, his attorney convinced with that he may escape a life sentence and basically bullied him into taking the deal. He immediately regretted it and contacted me to help him withdraw the plea under the liberal standard of “fair and just reason.” Claims of innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel and the testimony of his priest just didn’t cut it for this incredibly obstinate judge who used every available tool of intellectual dishonesty to deny his request. The truth was that the court just didn’t want to try the case.

Contrast that with Wally: he was fooling around sexually with his male cousin when they were 14 and 13 respectively. The families all knew about it and put a stop to it. 3 years later, the cousin brought this up at school and the counselor reported it to police. Because of Wisconsin’s juvenile court decisions, the case was treated as an adult crime because Wally was 17 and an adult for criminal law purposes. Also, since the accusation (a false accusation) was that Wally had threatened him with a knife, the judge ordered him to report as a sex offender for 15 years after he finished probation. On appeal, the client had to meet the manifest injustice standard but, to our great surprise, had a policy of granting nearly every request for withdrawing a plea practically for the asking if there is a claim of actual innocence. Since Wally did not fit that role, however, he did not do that. What is amazing is that he would of in a heartbeat.

The difference in these cases? The murder was in a busy Milwaukee court with a hyper-conservative judge and the sex case was in very rural Grant county with an incredibly flexible judge.

Any lessons here? Yes - if you are going to enter a plea (which is often a great idea) - be sure that it is what you want and that your attorney has adequately explained all of your options to you. Then you will not need to worry about coming back later to fix the mess. If you don’t like the deal - go to trial but only if your attorney is ready! If not get a continuance and a new lawyer.

---

John A. Birdsall, Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.831.5465 - www.birdsall-law.com

---

Never Judge a Book by its Cover

Battery to a Law Enforcement Officer is a crime that defense attorneys dread to defend. The case boils down to this. A police officer, usually in uniform, with gun and badge, will come in and tell the jury how much of a bad guy the defendant is, show his bruise, and then leave the stand. If anyone else testifies, it is usually his partner who witnessed the whole thing unfold. Slam dunk for the prosecution, right?

Not necessarily. Keep in mind that just because a case looks like a loser on its face does not mean that it is a loser deep inside.

As it turns out in our scenario, two police officers got on the stand and testified, but interestingly enough, they both told different stories. Under cross examination officer 1 and officer 2 could not even explain exactly how the injury occurred, even though they claim they were both, "right there". Referencing their police reports didn't help either. Upon refreshing their memories, they both realized they had written down different accounts of what happened. On top of the debacle which was the testimony of the two on scene officers, a detective got on the stand and initially testified that he had spent 2 hours with the defendant getting his confession. As it turns out, that didn't happen either. On cross, it came out that he really only spent 20 minutes with the defendant. By his own training manual that was not enough time to get an accurate statement.

In the end, the jury found my client not guilty and sent him home. So despite the charges, the bruising evidence and what may seem like insurmountable odds, we asked questions and set the record straight in a criminal trial by jury held in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on the charge of battery to a law enforcement officer and won an outright acquittal (not guilty verdict from the jury).

---

John A. Birdsall - T.J. Perlick-Molinari
Birdsall Law Offices, S.C.
135 W. Wells St., Ste 214, Milwaukee, WI 53203
801 West Walnut Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin 53704

414.831.5465
www.birdsall-law.com