600 F. App'x 462
7th Cir.2015Background
- Victim M.L., London’s daughter, wrote three school essays alleging sexual and physical abuse; initial disclosures inconsistent but later reported rape and other assaults to a social worker and police.
- Wisconsin charged London with two counts of sexual assault of a child; trial occurred years later after M.L. was in10th grade and after the stepmother’s death.
- Trial centered on credibility: M.L. and London were the only living eyewitnesses; M.L.’s essays and testimony and family witnesses were admitted.
- Prosecutor’s closing argued for M.L.’s credibility and suggested family members had turned a blind eye; defense attacked M.L.’s reliability.
- London was convicted and sentenced; he later filed successive postconviction and collateral challenges claiming ineffective assistance (failure to object to prosecutor’s closing and to jury room copies of the essays) and insufficiency of evidence.
- State courts rejected his claims; the federal district court denied §2254 relief and certified appeal on insufficiency and ineffective-assistance theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (Jackson claim) | London: testimony and evidence insufficient to sustain convictions. | State: M.L.’s testimony alone supports convictions. | Affirmed — M.L.’s testimony sufficient; state court’s Jackson application reasonable. |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor’s closing | London: counsel should have objected to remarks (vouching for M.L., comments on "wrath", disparaging family) and successor counsel should have raised that in §974.02 motion. | State: remarks were fair inferences from testimony, some invited by defense; objections would have been meritless. | Affirmed — no deficient performance or prejudice; state court reasonably applied Strickland. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge sending essays to jury room | London: successor counsel should have argued essays shouldn’t have gone to jury during deliberations. | State: trial counsel preserved the issue; pro se direct appeal waived claim against successor counsel; sending essays not an abuse of discretion. | Affirmed — claim frivolous; preserved for direct appeal and London proceeded pro se. |
| Availability of Strickland review for §974.02 postconviction representation | London: argues counsel’s failure in §974.02 merits Strickland review. | State: §974.02 is part of direct appeal process; counsel on these motions may have constitutional role. | Court assumed Strickland applicable but found no unreasonable application by state court; no relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence under Due Process)
- 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 to state court’s Strickland application under §2254(d))
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (limits on prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985) (prosecutor may not vouch for witness credibility)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (right to counsel includes meaningful assistance on first appeal as of right)