Jarrett M. Adams v. Daniel Bertrand

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defense counsel’s limited cross-examination was reasonable because more aggressive cross-examination might have generated sympathy for the alleged victim
• noting that Wisconsin “effectively duplicates” the standard created by Jackson
• finding trial counsel’s failure to investigate a crucial witness during trial amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel
• declining to conclude that counsel’s decision not to seek jury instruction for lesser-included offense was professionally unreasonable
• attorney’s failure to pursue witness with exculpatory testimony was prejudicial error where evidence was “relatively thin” and codefendant who called witness received mistrial
• counsel’s failure to “vigorously” confront sexual assault victim with prior inconsistent statements was reasonable in light of more aggressive cross examination by co-counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).