Price v. Thurmer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7890
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Price, a Wisconsin inmate, was convicted of attempted murder and related offenses after a 1991 rampage with a machete resulting in multiple injuries.
- He had a long history of mental illness; his behavior around the incident suggested possible insanity.
- Initial defense sought a competency hearing; counsel withdrew and new counsel obtained a 24-hour adjournment for competency proceedings.
- Trial physicians offered competing views: one for insanity, one against; a court-appointed expert, Drom, could not form an opinion without further information.
- Defense sought federal habeas relief after state remedies; district court denied relief; on remand, an evidentiary hearing was held.
- The Seventh Circuit previously ordered an evidentiary hearing to assess whether defense counsel’s acts prejudiced Price in the NGI defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Price’s trial counsel’s handling of the insanity defense was prejudicial. | Price | Thurmer | Yes, prejudice shown under Strickland standard |
| Whether the district court could admit new evidence under 2254(d)(1)/(d)(2) to evaluate ineffective assistance claims. | Price | State | Limited; evidentiary hearing not required to resolve record-based claims under Harrington |
| Whether Dr. Drom’s testimony could have been influenced if provided with witnesses’ reports. | Price | State | No clear prejudice; Wisconsin court reasonable in findings under 2254(d)(2) |
| Whether the state court’s prejudice determination was unreasonable. | Price | State | No; Harrington deference applies; no unreasonable factual determinations shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (competence requires ability to consult with counsel and understand proceedings)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (standards for competency to stand trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice standards for ineffective assistance)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (deference to state-court decisions; 'no possibility fairminded disagreement' standard)
- United States v. Andrews, 469 F.3d 1113 (2006) (prejudice must be shown for ineffective-assistance claims in some contexts)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (standards for competency to stand trial)