Sussman v. Jenkins
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8670
7th Cir.2011Background
- Wisconsin seeks to stay this court's mandate to pursue certiorari in the Supreme Court.
- State argues a reasonable probability of four justices granting cert and five reversing the court's judgment.
- The court denies the motion to stay the mandate.
- Main legal issues concern AEDPA deference, Strickland prejudice analysis, and Premo v. Moore relevance.
- Sussman v. Jenkins addresses how to evaluate state-court determinations on prejudice under Strickland.
- Court analyzes whether its approach aligned with Harrington, Wiggins, and Premo, and whether Confrontation Clause errors affected the Strickland analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stay should be granted. | Wisconsin argues likelihood of certiorari and reversal favors stay. | State fails to show irreparable injury and proper likelihood of success on merits. | Motion to stay denied. |
| Application of AEDPA deference and Strickland. | State contends the panel failed to apply AEDPA deference to Strickland's performance prong. | Court distinguishes Harrington and maintains appropriate analysis within existing precedent. | State's argument not persuasive; court not reversing precedent. |
| Premo v. Moore relevance to reasonableness of counsel. | Premo prevents reviewing court from going behind state court's no-prejudice finding in some contexts. | Premo has limited applicability to this case given the record's specific Strickland/prejudice interplay. | Premo's relevance is limited; does not alter court's conclusion. |
| Confrontation Clause and state court's reasoning. | State argues the panel relied on arguments not addressed by Wisconsin courts. | Panel relied on Redmond and associated Supreme Court authorities; Confrontation Clause issues were appropriately considered. | Court found arguments and authorities properly evaluated; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sussman v. Jenkins, 636 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2011) (overlaps between Strickland performance and prejudice in habeas review)
- Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2001) (structural framework for evaluating Confrontation Clause and prejudice)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (Confrontation Clause and testimony relevance in jury proceedings)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause and expert testimony impact on trial fairness)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988) (Confrontation Clause and right to effective cross-examination in prejudice analysis)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (Strickland prejudice evaluation can't be read apart from performance context)