Gerald Kamlager v. William Pollard
715 F.3d 1010
7th Cir.2013Background
- Wanda Greenlee died from gunshot and blunt-force trauma; body found in a secluded Walworth, Wisconsin area near Kamlager's home.
- Kamlager was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon, and hiding a corpse, with life imprisonment plus concurrent terms.
- Evidence at trial was largely circumstantial, including phone records, surveillance, and witness testimony about interactions with Wanda.
- The state introduced statements Kamlager made to police after he invoked his right to counsel, leading to a Sixth Amendment issue.
- Wisconsin appellate court held the tainted evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, applying a Chapman analysis, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of statements after counsel request violated rights | Kamlager argues Sixth/Therefore rights violated. | Pollard argues tainted evidence was admissible under invited-contact theory and harmless. | Harmless error; no reversal required. |
| Whether the error was harmless under Chapman standards | Kamlager contends error contaminated verdict. | Pollard contends overwhelming tainted evidence corroborated, so harmless. | Yes, harmless beyond reasonable doubt given strong untainted evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (Supreme Court) (harmless-error standard for constitutional violation at trial)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court) (burden to show harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (Supreme Court) (limits per se prejudice in confesssion cases; harmless-error standard)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (Supreme Court) (actual prejudice standard for collateral review)
- Premo v. Moore, 131 S. Ct. 733 (Supreme Court) (rejection of per se prejudice rule for suppressible confessions)
- Johnson v. Acevedo, 572 F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 2009) (reasonable-applied Chapman standard; no de novo deferral)
- United States v. Reyes, 270 F.3d 1158 (7th Cir. 2001) (circumstantial evidence as probative as direct evidence)
- State v. Hale, 691 N.W.2d 637 (Wis. 2005) (articulates Chapman factors for harmless-error analysis)