Goodman, Warren v. Bertrand, Daniel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding failure to call “disinterested witness” who was “crucial aspect” of the case was ineffective
• counsel’s failure to subpoena im‐ portant defense witness because he thought the state would, was prejudicial when combined with “catalog” of other er‐ rors
• the testimony of witnesses who would corroborate the 24 State v. Thiel, 2003 WI 111, ¶21, 264 Wis. 2d 571, 665 N.W.2d 305. 25 State v. Neumann, 2013 WI 58, ¶141 n.87, 348 Wis. 2d 455, 832 N.W.2d 560; Domke, 337 Wis. 2d 268, ¶33 (citing Thiel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).