911 N.W.2d 41
Wis.2018Background
- J.M. was involuntarily committed under Wis. Stat. ch. 51; the County sought a 12‑month extension after a jury trial.
- J.M. appeared at trial in prison clothing, shackled (shackles removed), and flanked by two uniformed DOC officers despite counsel’s prior request that he wear civilian clothes.
- Defense counsel did not move for a continuance, object to the attire/guards, or request a curative jury instruction; counsel referenced the attire during voir dire and opening.
- The County presented two psychiatrists who testified J.M. was schizophrenic, dangerous, and a proper subject for treatment; J.M. testified and denied being mentally ill, reiterating delusional beliefs.
- The jury unanimously found J.M. mentally ill, dangerous to self/others, and a proper subject for treatment by clear and convincing evidence; the circuit court ordered the commitment extension.
- J.M. moved for post‑disposition relief asserting ineffective assistance of counsel and, alternatively, a new trial in the interest of justice; the circuit court and court of appeals denied relief and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (J.M.) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(3) grants a right to effective assistance of counsel and the proper standard to evaluate claims | §51.20(3) guarantees representation; that includes effective counsel; a prejudice‑presuming or modified standard should apply | The statutory right to counsel implies effective assistance but Strickland standard should apply | §51.20(3) includes the right to effective counsel; Strickland v. Washington governs ineffective‑assistance claims in ch. 51 proceedings |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object to J.M.’s prison garb/guards and failure to request a curative instruction was ineffective assistance | Appearance in prison garb and presence of uniformed guards prejudiced the jury; counsel’s failure to object was deficient and should be presumed or found prejudicial | Even if counsel erred, the evidentiary record overwhelmingly supported commitment so no Strickland prejudice exists | No relief; J.M. failed Strickland prejudice prong — no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Whether J.M. is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice because of prison attire/guards | The attire and guards so distracted jurors that the real controversy was not fully tried; seek a new trial under Wis. Stat. § 751.06 | The record (including corrected written instruction and overwhelming evidence) shows the real controversy was fully tried | Denied — § 751.06 relief not warranted; the conflicting oral instruction was corrected in writing and the record supports the verdict |
| Whether conflicting jury instructions (oral vs. written burden) require a new trial | The initial oral misstatement of burden (greater weight) undermined proceedings combined with attire prejudice | The court later correctly instructed orally and provided the correct written instruction (clear and convincing); jurors received correct instruction in writing | Denied — the correct standard was given in writing and orally before deliberations; no miscarriage of justice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (prison attire may unduly prejudice juries)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (presence of courtroom security can create impression of dangerousness)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (discussion of serious liberty interests and evidentiary burdens in involuntary proceedings)
- In re M.D.(S)., 168 Wis.2d 995, 485 N.W.2d 52 (recognizes that statutory right to counsel encompasses effective assistance)