Kendrick Lee v. Lisa Avila
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17700
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police executed a no‑knock warrant at a suspected drug house and found Kendrick Lee sitting next to a coffee table with a 5.7g bag of cocaine and drug paraphernalia; officers also found two larger bags of cocaine in the basement, a loaded handgun in the kitchen, and keys on Lee’s person.
- Lee testified he was an innocent bystander helping his brother Tommie move items into the basement that morning; Tommie and brother Jimmie corroborated a moving‑day story involving items allegedly placed in the basement.
- Officer Harms testified he saw no furniture, box springs, or boxes in the basement during the search, directly contradicting the moving‑day defense.
- Posttrial, Lee raised multiple ineffective‑assistance claims under Strickland: failure to obtain eviction records and call a neutral witness (Jaclyn), inadequate cross‑examination about the keys, failure to establish non‑tenancy via lease/landlady, and failure to object to prosecutor’s trial and closing remarks.
- The state trial court denied relief on Strickland grounds (no prejudice); the Wisconsin Court of Appeals likewise found no reasonable probability of a different result and affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review; federal habeas was denied and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to develop eviction record / call neutral witness (Jaclyn) to support moving‑day defense | Lee: counsel was ineffective for not obtaining sheriff’s eviction records and not calling Jaclyn, who could confirm the eviction timing and bolster moving‑day story | State: even if counsel erred, additional evidence wouldn’t overcome the state’s strong case, particularly Harms’s basement testimony | No prejudice; appellate court reasonably concluded outcome would not likely differ |
| Inadequate cross‑examination of Officer Burch re: keys | Lee: counsel should have aggressively impeached Burch (reliance on memory, no corroboration, keys absent from intake inventory) | State: weaknesses in cross‑examination would not create a reasonable probability of a different verdict given other evidence | No prejudice; outcome not reasonably probable to change |
| Failure to call landlady / introduce lease to show Lee was not a tenant | Lee: counsel should have used lease/landlady testimony to disassociate Lee from the premises | State: even with these records, moving‑day defense was fatally undermined by uncontroverted officer testimony | No prejudice; additional proof would not have altered result |
| Failure to object to prosecutor’s misstatements at trial and closing (including eviction law and gun ownership implication) | Lee: counsel unreasonably failed to object to prejudicial cross‑examination and closing arguments, warranting relief | State: trial strategy can justify not objecting during cross/closing; remarks were not materially damaging and witnesses were already impeached | Richter presumption applies; state courts’ implicit conclusion of no deficient performance or no prejudice was reasonable; no habeas relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard requiring deficient performance and prejudice)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (presumption that unexplained state‑court denial is an adjudication on the merits)
- Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (Richter presumption applies when state court addresses some but not all claims)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 792 (treatment of presumed agreement when appellate court affirms lower court)