Opinion ID: 2685726
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Custodial statement made on February 11, 2003,

Text: and February 12, 2003[,] violated Hessler’s constitutional rights. A mental disease prevented Hessler from knowingly and intelligently waiving his constitutional right to remain silent. 2. Hessler was denied a fair and impartial jury due to pretrial publicity and the trial court’s denial of his motion to change venue. 3. Hessler’s waiver of counsel violated his constitutional rights. Mental illness rendered Hessler incompetent to waive counsel. 4. Hessler’s waiver of his right to be present in court was invalid. Hessler’s mental illness rendered him incompetent to waive his presence during court proceedings. 5. Comments by the Court and prosecutor violated Hessler’s right to a fair trial. 6. Trial counsel was ineffective during the guilt — innocence stage of Hessler’s trial including, but not limited to, not aggressively pursuing suppression of Hessler’s statements, not effectively pursuing a change of venue, not adequately investigating Hessler’s competency, etc. 7. Trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and litigate Hessler’s lack of mental capacity to waive his Fourth Amendment rights. 8. The trial court’s “mental anguish” jury instruction was unconstitutional. Trial and appellate counsel were ineffective by not pursuing that issue. 9. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s use of testimonial hearsay evidence, specifically DNA reports and lab analysis. 10. Hessler was incompetent to stand trial due to debilitating mental disease or defect. 11. Trial counsel was ineffective because Hessler was innocent due to an incapacity to act with deliberate and premeditated malice. 12. Trial counsel was generally ineffective at the aggravation hearing. Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. HESSLER 675 Cite as 288 Neb. 670 13. Hessler was denied a fair trial due to juror bias and misconduct. 14. Appellate counsel and post conviction counsel were generally ineffective. 15. The prosecutor generally committed prosecutorial misconduct at all stages of the proceedings. 16. Witness [Mark] Bohaty was allowed to present “pseudo-scientific” evidence regarding firearms. 17. Cumulative error. The district court found that Hessler’s second postconviction motion failed to raise any ground for relief not previously available to him. It noted that the issues of mental competency and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel were litigated on direct appeal or in his first postconviction action. And his various assertions of errors or misconduct at trial were previously litigated or were known and could have been raised in the prior proceedings. Finally, it observed that no constitutional basis existed for his claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. It therefore denied postconviction and coram nobis relief and dismissed the motion. Hessler timely appeals.