Opinion
No. 2012AP2278–CR.
2013-10-1
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Edward L. SMART, Defendant–Appellant.
The State then asked the entire panel whether they, friends, or relatives had been charged with operating while intoxicated. Numerous panel members raised their hands. The State addressed each of them individually, asking whether they felt the defendants had been treated fairly in the respective cases. DeFoe responded, “I guess so. I got what I deserved, I guess.” The State subsequently utilized a peremptory challenge to remove prospective juror DeFoe. In his postconviction motion, Smart argued his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge whether the State struck DeFoe for a racially neutral reason. Smart's attorney then requested that prospective juror Lee be removed for cause, and the court declined. Smart subsequently utilized a peremptory challenge to remove Lee. In his postconviction motion, Smart argued the court erroneously refused to strike Lee.