Hernandez v. Tegels, 2:21-cv-00331

Antonio Hernandez was convicted by a Milwaukee County jury in 2016 of two counts of first-degree sexual assault of children under 13 and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment followed by extended supervision.
His conviction was upheld on direct appeal and in postconviction proceedings in the Wisconsin courts.
Hernandez filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing the state courts unreasonably applied federal law.
His claims included ineffective assistance of counsel, sufficiency of evidence, violations relating to witness sequestration and juror taint, and failure to obtain in camera review of victims' medical records.
The District Court found most claims procedurally defaulted and the insufficiency of evidence claim lacking merit, ultimately denying the habeas petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance (competency exam)	Counsel failed to seek a third exam for petitioner’s competency	No showing another exam would have changed outcome	Procedurally defaulted; state law followed
Sufficiency of evidence	Victims’ testimony unreliable, possible dream, inconsistencies	Testimony was sufficient; inconsistencies are for the jury	Evidence sufficient under Jackson standard
Sequestration of witnesses	Allowing victims' mother (J.R.) in courtroom prejudiced testimony	Discretionary decision, no due process violation shown	Procedurally defaulted; not raised constitutionally in state court
Failure to individually poll jurors after Juror 13 excused	Court should have questioned each juror to ensure no taint	Group polling sufficient; no evidence of taint	Procedurally defaulted under contemporaneous objection rule
Failure to seek in camera review of records	Counsel failed to investigate/vet therapy records of victims	No factual basis for review; records access since abrogated	Procedurally defaulted; no longer a cognizable right

Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (AEDPA standard for habeas review)
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (deferential habeas standard to state courts)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (must be objectively unreasonable to override state decision)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of evidence on habeas review)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (procedural default in federal habeas)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (unreasonable application of federal law must be beyond fairminded disagreement)
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (exhaustion requirement in habeas corpus)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (certificate of appealability standard)