Federal Appeal 5

---

3: THE DENIAL OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION BY COMPETENT, COUNSEL. Joe Pease was to testify at Richard Pease's trial. Joe Pease was an important defense witness. Attorney Mares testified at Richard Pease's post conviction hearing that Joe Pease was an important witness to the defense. Joe Pease would be able to testify to a different version than what Todd Crawford testified to at trial Within four or five days of the trial Attorney Mares still counted on Joe Pease as being essentially a helpful witness to the defense. It never occurred to Attorney Mares that Joe Pease might back down. There was a break in the trial when Attorney Mares was informed that Joe Pease would not be taking the stand. Attorney Mares went to talk with Joe Pease. Joe Pease's demeanor was completely different than any other time. Before this Joe Pease tended to be very relaxed and very open, and would an­swer anything Attorney Mares asked him. Now his demeanor was as if he was afraid of what would happen to him if he testified. Attorney Mares further went on to say some from Joe Pease's family was telling him what Joe was, or who, Joe was afraid of. But the court would not let him answer. Joe Pease testified at post conviction that he believed his testimony would help Richard Pease. Joe Pease also testified at Mark Price's post conviction. Mark Price was a co-defendant. He testified that he also in­tended on testifying at Mark Price's trial. District Attorney Paulus and Detective Forseth paid a visit to Joe Pease in the jail before he was to testify. He then decided on not testifying, because he was afraid they would charge him for party to being in the crime of murder. When asked who told you that, Joe Pease replied Mr.Paulus.(DA Paulus) He further testified that he seen Todd Crawford hit Mike Fitzgibbons once and also hit him once real hard in the head. Which made it a total of two times that Todd Crawford hit Mike Fitzgibbons. There are numerous statements in which Joe Pease indicates intimidation was a factor for him not testifying. There is also evidence that Joe Pease stated that he informed the District Attorney of certain exculpatory matters, which the defense did not receive them, this would be a Brady violation. Joe Pease had brought this up in affidavits, interviews with special investigators, and letters from Price's Appellate Attorney. If defendant Richard Pease were allowed to testify at trial, he would have testified truthful. And as Judge Haase brought up in his decision at post conviction concerning Pease's testimony at Price's post conviction, which Judge Haase believed to be truthful said it would have been harmful to Pease's defense. That should have been testimony the jury should have heard. Instead the jury only heard Todd Crawford's testimony and therefore they weren't allowed to hear all the facts and most of all Todd Crawford's participation. Therefore the State of Wisconsin allowed Todd Crawford to get away with murder because the only evidence the state had against Pease was Todd Crawford's testimony. At post conviction trial counsel testified that, he doesn't know whether Pease had a choice to testify or not, but that he strongly advised Pease not to testify. Defense attorney told Pease at trial that if Pease testified he would withdraw as Pease's counsel. So Pease had no choice but to not testify at his trial because he was afraid he would be without an attorney. At the start of trial Attorney Mares said he would make an opening statement when the defense made there case, Attorney Mares never made an opening statement. Pease had a constitutional right to present an opening statement if he confined the statement to a discussion of what he hoped to show with his evidence. Attorney Mares defense was that the state could not prove that a homicide had occurred. That is why counsel should have made an opening statement. Attorney Mares was also negligent by not pursuing Pease's claim of lesser intent. Nor did he request a mental evaluation. Pease informed his attorney he was suicidal according to jail records. The jail also had him on medication. Attorney Mares was only interested in having a comeback match with DA Paulus as reported in the newspaper. Trial Counsel was ineffective because he did not inform the Court and the Jury that Richard Pease suffered from Bells Palsy. Bells Palsy is an involuntary movement of facial muscles. Which would tend to make people think that a person who has Bells Palsy is glaring or smirking or sneering at witnesses, when this was not the case at all. And Judge Haase had mentioned Pease's demeanor at Pease's sentencing. The Winnebago County Jail felt it necessary to put Richard Pease on an anti-depressant. This medication continued before, during and after the trial. Jail records will show the medication that Richard Pease was on during the trial. Trial Counsel did not bring this to the courts attention. Richard Pease was on psychotropic medication, which caused his thinking to be clouded, was unable to think or comprehend what was going on. This medication also had an effect as to Richard Pease's attitude, expressions and facial movements. This information would have brought a great deal of insight into the behavior and demeanor of Richard Pease during the trial. Judge Haase at Pease's sentencing said he had been watching Richard Pease, observing behavior and attitude. He felt Richard Pease had no remorse, no respect, and was just a coldhearted killer. Judge Haase also stated at sentencing, he observed Richard Pease at the trial, and Judge Haase said that Pease was glaring at witnesses. If Defense Attorney would have brought the Bells Palsy and medication to the court it would have explained the reasons for his demeanor in court.