Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his reckless homicide conviction on grounds that Wisc. trial court improperly denied his request to proceed pro se on ground that, although defendant was competent to waive counsel, his limited literacy skills and education prevented him from competently proceeding to trial. While Ct. of Appeals observed that said denial came close to violating Faretta, 422 U.S. 806, because trial court had used two different standards of competency, and that it would have granted defendant’s request, it further found under AEDPA standards that trial court’s denial of defendant’s request to proceed pro se was not unreasonable application of Faretta given defendant’s limited literacy and education. However, remand for hearing was required on defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where: (1) defendant made strong argument that prosecutor committed error in vouching for credibility of state’s witness during closing argument; and (2) record failed to contain statement of trial counsel as to why counsel had failed to object to prosecutor’s closing argument.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel