430 F.Supp.3d 568
E.D. Wis.2019Background
- Decedent Andrew Schuckman was found dead on a concrete patio behind a bar after an earlier parking‑lot altercation; autopsy showed a skull fracture and severe brain injuries. The State charged Dunn (and co‑defendant Crochet) with felony murder (predicate: misdemeanor battery) and related counts.
- Dunn admitted slapping Schuckman; bartender Kuemin testified he spoke with and escorted Schuckman to a grassy area behind the bar after the altercation; Schuckman’s body was later found ~5 feet away on the patio with fresh blood.
- The State’s medical examiner (Dr. Biedrzycki) testified at trial that the brain injuries would not necessarily cause instantaneous death and that Schuckman might have been able to move or communicate after the injury.
- Trial counsel (Schwantes) expected the ME to testify death was instantaneous and therefore relied on cross‑examination rather than retaining a defense forensic expert; he also did not interview the ME before trial or follow up on exculpatory expert work being done for the co‑defendant.
- After trial, co‑defendant’s experts issued reports concluding the fatal injury occurred later on the patio (not in the parking lot); defense postconviction hearing presented contrary expert testimony (Dr. Stephens, Dr. Luzzio, and a blood‑pattern analyst) supporting a no‑causation/alternative‑cause theory.
- The state trial court denied postconviction relief (finding no demonstrated prejudice); the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found counsel was not deficient. The federal district court granted habeas relief, holding counsel’s investigation and failure to call experts were objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; ordered release unless retried within 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and call expert witnesses (including not interviewing ME) | Dunn: counsel unreasonably assumed ME would support defense, failed to retain defense experts, and did not pursue or obtain co‑defendant experts’ favorable reports | State: counsel made reasonable strategic choices (eliciting points on cross from State’s witness), and postconviction experts do not prove counsel deficient | Held: Counsel’s failure to investigate ME opinions, to retain experts, and to pursue co‑defendant experts was objectively unreasonable under Strickland; state court unreasonably applied Strickland |
| Whether counsel’s failure to follow up on co‑defendant’s experts or seek a continuance was deficient | Dunn: prosecutor’s disclosure that co‑defendant retained exculpatory experts required counsel to inquire or seek adjournment | State: proceeding to trial was strategic and reasonably based on counsel’s assessment | Held: Counsel unreasonably failed to investigate or seek a continuance after learning of potentially exculpatory expert work |
| Whether Dunn suffered Strickland prejudice from counsel’s errors | Dunn: reasonable probability jury would have had reasonable doubt had experts like Dr. Stephens and Dr. Luzzio testified | State: the evidence still supported conviction; trial court reasonably found only speculative effect | Held: On de novo review of prejudice, district court finds reasonable probability of a different outcome; confidence in verdict undermined |
| Whether AEDPA precludes federal relief because state courts reasonably applied federal law | Dunn: state appellate decision unreasonably applied Strickland given record | State: appellate ruling reasonable and entitled to deference under AEDPA | Held: District court concludes Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied Strickland; federal habeas relief granted (release unless retried within 90 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference standard for AEDPA; state‑court decisions must be objectively unreasonable to grant habeas)
- Woods v. Donald, 135 S. Ct. 1372 (2015) (clarifying AEDPA review standard)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (counsel’s duty to investigate mitigating or critical facts; limits on post‑hoc strategic justification)
- Stitts v. Wilson, 713 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013) (extent of counsel’s investigation assessed case‑by‑case)
- Monroe v. Davis, 712 F.3d 1106 (7th Cir. 2013) (unreasonable lapse vs. strategic choice distinction)