State v. Jeffrey P. Lepsch
892 N.W.2d 682
Wis.2017Background
- Jeffrey Lepsch was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of first‑degree intentional homicide, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm by a felon; sentenced to consecutive life terms and additional prison terms.
- Extensive pretrial juror questionnaires were used; prospective jurors were sworn by the La Crosse County Clerk in the jury assembly room before individual and group voir dire in court; Lepsch and counsel were not present for that initial swearing.
- During voir dire and by questionnaire several seated jurors indicated tendencies: some said they would give police more credibility, some admitted previously thinking Lepsch was guilty, and one qualified the presumption of innocence answer.
- Lepsch moved for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to (among other things) challenge biased jurors for cause, object to improper administration of the oath outside his presence, and secure his full number of peremptory strikes; the circuit court denied relief and the court of appeals affirmed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals, holding Lepsch failed to prove juror bias or prejudice from counsel’s conduct and that any procedural issues (oath administration, number of strikes) did not require relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lepsch) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror impartiality | Several seated jurors were subjectively and objectively biased (police‑credibility answers; statements of preformed opinions); counsel ineffective for inadequate voir dire | Voir dire, follow‑up questioning, and instructions cured concerns; jurors presumed impartial and record supports that | No biased juror sat; Lepsch failed to show deficient performance produced prejudice; claim denied |
| Due process / appearance of bias | Voir dire circumstances and insufficient court inquiry created likelihood/appearance of bias | Court used extra precautions (questionnaires, individual questioning, excusals) and adequately investigated bias | No due process violation; voir dire procedures sufficient |
| Administration of oath to venire outside defendant's presence | Swearing by clerk in jury room (without defendant/counsel) violated right to be present, public trial, and impartial jury; counsel ineffective for not objecting | The jury actually sworn in court before trial; clerks are authorized to manage jury process; any absence was harmless or forfeited without timely objection | Claim forfeited or harmless; no prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim fails |
| Peremptory strikes and for‑cause rulings | Defendant entitled to seven peremptory strikes and was forced to exhaust strikes on jurors who should have been excused for cause; counsel ineffective | Both sides received fewer strikes but no biased juror ultimately sat; no proof exhaustion led to objectionable juror on jury | No prejudice shown; equal reduction of strikes not reversible here; ineffective assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) (review standard for juror impartiality assessments and deference to trial judge credibility determinations)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (no fixed formula for voir dire; impartiality is a state of mind and trial judge’s demeanor assessment is critical)
- State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700 (1999) (Wisconsin tripartite bias framework and deference to circuit court on subjective bias)
- State v. Funk, 335 Wis. 2d 369 (2011) (standards for objective bias review and interplay of fact/law)
- State v. Erickson, 227 Wis. 2d 758 (1999) (refusal to presume prejudice where impartial jury sat despite voir dire/formal errors)
- State v. Pinno, 356 Wis. 2d 106 (2014) (public‑trial right may be forfeited without timely objection; discusses harmlessness and ineffective assistance context)