Felton v. Bartow

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his Wisconsin intentional homicide conviction involving his infant son on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to statement prosecutor made during closing argument that jailhouse informant could not receive sentence reduction in exchange for his favorable testimony (when, in fact, informant did receive reduction after trial) and for failing to secure medical expert to counter govt.’s medical experts, who stated that infant son died, in part, due to shaking. Defendant could not establish any prejudice arising out of trial counsel’s efforts during trial, where counsel repeatedly argued to jury that informant, who stated that defendant had told him that he slammed infant into door, was not believable, and where counsel told jury that informant still could receive reduction in sentence after defendant's trial. Moreover, although defendant’s post-conviction medical experts stated that infant did not die because of shaking and could have died via short fall, said experts also did not support defendant’s testimony that infant died while slipping in bath-tub while seated, or that infant could have died while being carried by others. As such, result of defendant’s trial would not have changed as result of counsel’s alleged shortcomings.